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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the response includes role concerns, message prompts, an influence map and discovery questions, and sector-specific roles are appended when inputs name a supported sector. However it never says which sectors are supported, which is the key behavioral unknown an agent would need.

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 core action and then the output inventory. Dense but every clause maps to a real capability. The trailing sector clause is slightly vague rather than wasteful.

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 return-value burden and does a fair job by listing the artifacts returned. The gap is the undefined "supported sectors" conditional, which leaves the agent unable to predict or trigger that behavior confidently.

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 every parameter including the enum and the business_model fallback rule is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the champion and stakeholder inputs without adding syntax, format, or format-example detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Map") and resource ("the buyer group for a deal") and enumerates the artifacts produced: roles placed by title, each role's concern and message prompts, an influence map and discovery questions. It is clearly distinct from sibling ICP/account tools. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 by the artifact list (mapping stakeholders for a deal). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to account_prioritization or icp_deep_dive. The sector sentence is a behavioral note about conditional output, not guidance on selection.

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