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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the output is written 'from your own words, in whole sentences' and includes testable versions, which tells the agent this is a generative drafting tool rather than a lookup.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by inputs and outputs in a logical order. The long enumeration of optional inputs and deliverables partially duplicates the schema, but every sentence still serves to set expectations about what the agent receives.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: full and one-sentence positioning statements, a tagline-to-three-pillars hierarchy, audience variants, objection handling and testing approaches. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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% with 9 well-documented parameters, including enum explanations for your_sector and business_model, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's input sentence mostly restates the schema's required/optional split and adds no new format or constraint detail, which lands at the baseline.

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+resource: it helps decide a core message and test it, and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (positioning statement, message hierarchy, audience versions, objection handling). That is clearly distinct from siblings like impact_pinpoint_value or impact_anchor_market, though it never names them explicitly.

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 through the give/get framing ('You give your target customer... You get a positioning statement'). There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over impact_pinpoint_value or impact_anchor_market, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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