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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: focus_phase narrows output to a single step, sector selection injects sector-specific buyer roles, measures and proof points, and unclear input yields a neutral reading.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the input/output contract follows in a logical order. The parenthetical enumeration of all six steps is long but earns its place by mapping to the focus_phase enum; the sentence run-on is the only cost.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing returns: step-by-step method, a template or checklist per step, and the sector overlay. The main gap is the unaddressed overlap with the per-phase sibling tools, which leaves an agent with a real selection ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by spelling out what sector actually changes in the output (buyer roles, measures, proof points) and by framing focus_phase as a filter that returns just that step, information the enum alone 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 opens with a specific role: deciding which positioning steps to run and in what order, then names the six steps returned. This distinguishes it from the single-phase siblings in spirit, but it never explicitly says when to use this orchestrator versus impact_anchor_market or impact_full_audit, which matters because focus_phase can return exactly what a sibling returns.

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 states the invocation patterns clearly ('you give nothing, or one IMPACT step to focus on and your sector'), which is better than nothing. However, there are no exclusions or rules for choosing between this tool and the seven sibling phase tools, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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