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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it only hints that the tool returns a "prompt pack" with usage guide and edge-case handling — which is at least a signal about output form, but leaves unclear whether the tool actually performs polishing or merely ships a prompt. It says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what happens to input, and the restaurant/brand framing doesn't match a performance-review operation.

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?

Only three sentences, but they are largely marketing filler ("in minutes", "professional results") that displaces the operational facts an agent needs. The opening line is a slogan rather than a front-loaded statement of function.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description had to explain both what the tool does and what it returns; instead it offers vague promises. For a tool sitting in a dense perf-* family, the absence of any differentiation or output description leaves the definition inadequate.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional `query` parameter is already documented in the schema as scoping the analysis, so the baseline applies. The description adds no further meaning about how a query affects output or what happens when it is omitted.

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 reads like promotional copy ("Turn expertise into output", "produce professional results in minutes") rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never explains what "perf polish" means (presumably polishing performance-review content) and gives no way to distinguish it from the many perf-* siblings such as perf-rewrite-tool, perf-polish-tool's nearest neighbours, or perf-write-tool. The audience claim ("restaurant and brand teams") is odd for a performance-review tool and adds confusion rather than precision.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no conditions, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the perf-audit/check/gen/rewrite/sort/summary/write/polish family. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over perf-rewrite-tool or perf-write-tool.

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