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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the authoritative schema and notes that submission happens via Pitch Protocol's email-verified flow, but does not add much behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey. It is consistent with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the content. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though slightly long, it earns its length.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It also mentions the email-verified flow, which is useful context. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by thoroughly explaining what the returned schema contains, which is essential since the input schema has no properties. It adds value by describing the content of the response.

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 states it retrieves the live Pitch Protocol application schema, listing the exact fields, character limits, enums, and an example. It distinguishes itself from the sibling pitchprotocol_application_status by focusing on the schema itself, not status.

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 explicitly says when to use it: for questions like 'how do I pitch Pitch Protocol' or before assembling a submission. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but is still clear.

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