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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses key behaviors: cost ($24), return values (checkout_url, order_id), and the asynchronous result retrieval via ni_order_status. It doesn't mention failure modes or timing, but it outlines the essential workflow.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose before cost and next steps. Every clause adds value, with no verbose or redundant content.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states purpose, cost, return fields, and the follow-up tool. It omits details like how payment completion is confirmed or what the final brief looks like, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'signals you supply' but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. It neither corrects nor significantly extends the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('prioritized market signal brief') with a clear subject ('industry vertical') and source ('built from signals you supply'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ni_order_status and ni_store_order by establishing its unique paid-brief purpose.

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 description provides clear context for use: you supply signals, pay $24, receive a checkout_url/order_id, then use ni_order_status. It doesn't name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the call-to-action and follow-up are unambiguous.

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