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 description's value is in disclosure beyond that: it explains the returned artifact is a timed run with spoken lines and per-feature steps, and notably that 'the answer says where they came from and what it did not get' - an honest provenance and gap-limitation statement.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, in three dense sentences. Slight redundancy between 'a step for each feature you must show, tied to the pains you name' and 'The steps come from the parts of your solution and your pains,' which restate the same dependency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract - and it does, enumerating the timed run, spoken lines, feature steps, discussion, close, follow-up lines, sector notes, and provenance reporting. Given 12 params and 2 required, this is adequate, though it doesn't clarify how optional inputs shape the output.

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 12 inputs, including the enum for demo_type and the sector-notes behavior for your_sector. The description ties pains and features to steps conceptually but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: 'Writes a demo script for the demo type, persona and use case you choose.' The output scope (timed run, spoken lines, steps, discussion/close/follow-up) makes it distinguishable from siblings like proposal_section_writer or champion_enablement_kit, but no sibling is named 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 implied by the scenario it serves (building a run-of-show for a chosen demo type/persona), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against adjacent tools such as champion_enablement_kit or discovery_question_bank.

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