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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the tool produces criteria rather than fetched data, and that each buying trigger yields its own discrete signal — output-shape information the annotations do not carry.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus the 'criteria, not data' caveat are front-loaded. The trailing clause about platforms is slightly awkwardly appended but still earns its place.

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 so partially ('each trigger gets its own signal', 'generates criteria, not data'). It tells the agent enough to call the tool confidently, though the exact output sections are only loosely sketched.

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 is 3, but the description goes further by explaining interaction semantics: 'platforms limits the sections' (and all sections appear when omitted), and product_category drives search keywords and sector notes. That adds meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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+resource: generating targeting criteria and search queries from four named input types. The parenthetical '(generates criteria, not data)' sharpens scope well. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the icp_* siblings, which is the only gap.

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?

The description never says when to choose this over icp_deep_dive, icp_scoring_model, or the other eight siblings. Usage is only inferable from the input list. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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