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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: with no output schema, it is the sole source of return-value detail (score bands, lead motion, warnings, sector objections) and it discloses the conditional degradation to "preliminary" when optional inputs are missing.

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, front-loaded with purpose then inputs then outputs, with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration of all eight optional inputs is slightly redundant with the schema but serves as a quick completeness checklist.

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?

For a 12-parameter, read-only scoring tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains the return shape and the preliminary-result condition. Remaining gaps are routing relative to siblings and any hint of latency or determinism, which are secondary for a pure computation call.

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 every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds some meaning by separating required inputs (challenge, stage, industry) from optional ones and stating the consequence of omitting the optional set, but it restates the optional parameter names rather than adding format or decision guidance.

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 states a specific purpose (choosing a go-to-market motion) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: EPIC scores 1-10 across five motions, the lead motion, warnings/notes, and sector buying-committee context. That output list distinguishes it from a generic consultation tool, though it never names or contrasts the siblings generate_roadmap and gtm_consultation.

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?

It implies when the tool applies ("helps you decide which go to market motion fits your company") and gives one real usage rule: supplying optional inputs yields a full score, omitting them yields a preliminary result. It does not state when to prefer this over gtm_consultation or generate_roadmap, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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