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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it fails: it discloses nothing about what the tool reads, whether it mutates anything, what it returns, or any limits. "Ships as a full prompt kit with step-by-step instructions and a 30-day support promise" is commercial boilerplate, not a behavioral trait. An agent learns nothing actionable about execution.

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?

Three sentences of promotional wording with redundant claims ("no prompt engineering needed", "full prompt kit", "30-day support promise") that do not help invocation. The lead sentence is front-loaded with an irrelevant "restaurant & brand intelligence pack" rather than the actual 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, no output schema, and only one loosely described parameter, the description should explain the deliverable and behavior; instead it advertises a purchasable kit. An agent cannot tell what calling this tool produces, nor how it relates to the gen/tpl siblings.

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% for the single optional "query" parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no meaning about what query scoping does to the analysis, but at high coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is largely marketing copy: "AI-powered restaurant & brand intelligence pack" and "generate a ready-to-use risk check tool workflow" never clearly state whether the tool performs a risk check or merely emits a prompt kit. The domain claim (restaurant & brand intelligence) is disconnected from the pm-risk name and from the sibling family pm-risk-gen-tool / pm-risk-tpl-tool, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it. It restates and obscures rather than specifying a verb+resource.

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 guidance on when to use this versus pm-risk-gen-tool or pm-risk-tpl-tool, which are the obvious alternatives sharing the same prefix. No preconditions, exclusions, or scenario triggers are given; the only framing is a sales pitch.

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