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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent evaluation. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what gets returned (weakest factor, how to fix it, red flags) and the scoring thresholds that drive the verdict, plus a scope disclaimer.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scoring rubric and decision bands. The returns sentence is warranted because no output schema exists; the disclaimer earns its place. Minimal waste overall.

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 output schema, the description correctly steps in to summarize return values (weakest factor, fix, red flags) and the verdict logic. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about how the rubric maps to the returned fix guidance.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description names the four scored factors and indicates the three booleans feed 'pain / money / willingness-to-suffer checks,' adding modest meaning but no syntax or scoring detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Score') on a specific resource ('business idea') and enumerates the exact dimensions (Margin, Operations, Advantage, TAM) plus the decision bands. This clearly distinguishes it from analytical siblings like price_headroom_check or thirty_day_cash_check.

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 communicates what the scoring means (FUND/FIX/FLEE bands) and its educational nature, which implies usage, but never states when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling evaluators. There are no explicit conditions or named alternatives.

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