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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states that this is a paid service at 90.0 USDC on Base (pay-per-use) and discloses the expected deliverables: deep-dive, market-entry strategy, and sources. This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it omits output format details.

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 very compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then the input format, then the pricing. Every clause adds information without fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, it summarizes the output contents (deep-dive, market-entry strategy, sources), specifies the input, and flags the cost. It is complete enough to select and invoke the tool, though an explicit example of the sector+region format would have made it undeniable.

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 input schema only says 'service input', which is generic, but the description clarifies that the input should be a sector and region. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema and is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 specifies a B2B enterprise sector deep-dive with market-entry strategy and sources, and states the required input as sector and region. It is reasonably specific but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like market-research-report or market-intelligence.

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 phrase 'B2B: enterprise sector deep-dive' implies when to use it, and 'input=sector+region' gives a concrete invocation pattern. However there is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool.

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