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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add operational context by specifying 'input=product' and the pricing model ('[x402: 40.0 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]'), which an agent needs before invoking. However, it does not describe the output format, expected response, or any side effects, leaving important behavioral information unstated.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose (go-to-market plan), then the key input and pricing details. The bracketed payment address and 'ENTERPRISE' prefix are somewhat noisy, but the overall structure wastes little space.

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?

For a single-string-input generator, the description captures the main purpose, input, expected output areas, and cost. Still, it omits practical context like how the returned plan is structured, whether the 40 USDC payment is required upfront, and when this tool should be preferred over sibling strategy tools. Given no output schema and no annotations, that leaves noticeable gaps.

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?

The schema only says 'service input' for the single parameter, which is generic. The description adds real meaning by stating 'input=product', clarifying what should be passed. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and this additional semantic lifts it.

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 description clearly identifies the tool's function: it produces a go-to-market plan covering ICP, channels, pricing, and launch, with product as the required input. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as strategy-plan, business-plan, or brand-strategy, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives like business-plan, strategy-plan, or market-research-report, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only contextual cues are the 'ENTERPRISE' tag and the mention of product input, which imply but do not articulate appropriate use.

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