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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description is free to spend its words on outcomes, which it does: per-motion 1-10 rubric scores, primary/secondary motion selection, 30-day steps, sector notes, and the preliminary flag. It doesn't state determinism or latency, but for a read-only scoring endpoint the disclosure is strong beyond the annotations.

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?

The lead sentence is well front-loaded and the closing sentence about the preliminary marker earns its place. The middle sentence, though, largely enumerates parameters the schema already documents, which is filler in a three-sentence description and makes the prose run-on.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and only one required field, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back and does so: four rubric scores, motion ranking, 30-day plan, sector notes, and the preliminary qualifier. What remains thin is the boundary with sibling tools, not the mechanics of the call itself.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it separates the required GTM challenge/stage/industry from the optional ACV, deal cycle, NRR, TAM, self-serve, deal source and geography, and explains the consequence of omitting them. It also frames sector notes as conditional on inputs naming the sector, linking the industry parameter to an output effect.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it scores four EPIC GTM motions and produces the first 30 days of steps for the primary one. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic/planning tool rather than a roadmap generator. It never names the siblings (epic_audit, generate_roadmap), so the boundary with those tools has to be inferred from the output description.

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 context is implied by 'Helps you decide which go to market motion to lead with', and the description usefully explains that omitting optional inputs yields a result 'marked preliminary', which is real guidance about how much to invest in the call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-epic_audit or when-to-use-vs-generate_roadmap routing, which is a clear gap given three sibling tools.

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