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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low. The description nonetheless discloses the output shape — a card per named competitor, status-quo entries, plus sector questions and objections — which is real behavioral information given no output schema exists.

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 states the action before the details. It is dense and slightly run-on with its colon-plus-list construction, but every clause carries information.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is produced, but it omits how required inputs (your_product, category) shape the result and gives no guidance on sequencing relative to the sibling impact_* tools. It is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes the schema's semantics ('the weaknesses and strengths you give', 'the questions and objections of your sector') but adds no syntax, formatting, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific action (map alternatives) and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: one card per named competitor, status-quo options, and sector questions/objections. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like impact_anchor_market or impact_craft_message by subject matter, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other impact_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the topic words 'alternatives' and 'competitors'.

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