Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful framing about scope (a static reference covering markets, archetypes, holding layers) via the 'Rule zero' note, but adds no behavioral context such as output size, freshness, or whether holdings analysis is complete versus illustrative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, but the first is a dense, list-heavy content catalog that buries the core purpose under enumerations. The 'Optionally pass a market or archetype' line is properly placed at the end, but the front-loading of purpose is weakened by the keyword dump.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety; the description adequately conveys the topical scope and optional focusing parameters. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which for a large tool family this crowded is a meaningful omission but not fatal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are optional, so the schema already carries the definitions. The description loosely maps its prose terms (USA, EU, Switzerland, Asia, Middle East income; solo, scale-up, multi-region enterprise) to the enum-like values, adding marginal meaning but no syntax beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb+resource (a 'structuring playbook' for online/global businesses) is stated concretely, and the description enumerates the three content domains it covers: customer-market setups, worldwide archetype stacks, and holding-layer options. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_structuring_roster or plan_global_setup, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is 'Optionally pass a market or archetype to focus', which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to consult this playbook versus plan_global_setup, get_structuring_roster, or find_low_tax, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.