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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: scoring is grounded only in what the plan contains (Timeline counts real dates, durations and quarters), it quotes the plan's own line, names only missing elements, and suggests sections to add — a useful anti-hallucination guarantee.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the two sentences carry no filler. The second sentence is a long run-on stacking four separate behaviors, which slightly hurts scannability but does not waste words.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: an analysis with a score per CRAFT dimension plus missing-element callouts and section suggestions. For a read-only analyzer whose safety profile is already in annotations, this is nearly complete, though a hint about score scale or granularity would close the last gap.

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%, including rich notes on industry/your_sector fallback behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds framework-level detail (how Timeline is scored) but no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents, and it does not explain how document_type or desired_outcome affect the analysis.

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 and resource: it takes GTM document text and returns an analysis scored against the CRAFT framework, dimension by dimension. That is far more precise than a tautology, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like pmf_scorecard or launch_commander, which also evaluate GTM-adjacent artifacts.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called when a GTM document or plan needs scoring, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against the seven siblings. No prerequisites or input-format guidance beyond the schema is offered.

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