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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one meaningful behavioral constraint — that output must not be negative — but says nothing about return format, length, or how the generated tactics are structured.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, and the core deliverable is front-loaded. The jargon 'landmine questions' is immediately clarified by the following phrase, keeping it readable.

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 nine-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description does not describe what is returned (format, number of tactics, structure), which leaves the agent to infer the response shape. Annotations cover safety, but the return contract is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters including enums, defaults, and fallback behavior for business_model. The description's mention of questions and positioning tactics loosely maps to trap_type but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('landmine questions and competitive positioning tactics'), so the agent knows the deliverable. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the overlapping discovery_question_bank or deal_strategy_coach.

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 phrase 'during evaluation' gives an implied context for use, and 'without being negative' hints at an ethical boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternative tools are named to route the agent.

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