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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, closed, read-only generation (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful shape about the output ('positioning statement and message hierarchy', 'proof and objections'), but says nothing about determinism, downstream use, or what happens when required inputs are thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and artifact rather than burying it. It is dense but not padded; the only weakness is that cramming sector, business model, proof, and objections into one clause reduces scannability.

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?

For a 9-parameter, 3-required generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent and output components but not the return format, how proof/objections are sourced, or edge behavior when optional context (sector, business_model) is omitted. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, including notes on when sector and business_model are inferred from the user's words, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the vague phrase 'from your own words' and no field-level semantics of its own, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb (Build) and concrete artifacts (positioning statement, message hierarchy) with the scope modifier 'from your own words' and sector/business-model fitting. It's clearly distinct from a generic generator, but it never names or contrasts the sibling tools (impact_pinpoint_value, impact_map_alternatives), so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing. 'From your own words' hints that raw, unpolished inputs are expected, but the agent is left to guess how this relates to impact_pinpoint_value or impact_map_alternatives.

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