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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it enumerated the exact output contents (1-10 scores, primary/secondary motion, 30-day plan, sector notes) and disclosed the preliminary-vs-full result condition. It says nothing about latency or repeat-run caching.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the output contract before the input advice. The parenthetical list of optional inputs is a mild restatement of the schema, but it is compact and it earns its place by tying those inputs to the preliminary/full distinction.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so concretely. For a 13-parameter tool with only one required input, the description plus 100% schema coverage is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to the two sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including optional markers and enum values. The description goes beyond that by grouping the optional inputs (ACV, deal cycle, NRR, TAM, self-serve, deal source, geography) and explaining their effect on output quality, which the per-parameter schema text does not convey.

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 verb set and resource: it scores the four GTM motions, names primary/secondary motion, and lists 30-day steps. An agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the siblings epic_audit or generate_roadmap, which appear closely related.

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 gives input-level guidance ('add the optional inputs for a full score; without them the result is marked preliminary'), which tells the agent how to get the best result. It offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over epic_audit or generate_roadmap, so tool-selection context is implied rather than stated.

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