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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the returned sections and by stating it uses only supplied inputs and reports which it did not get — a genuinely useful behavioral trait for a prompt-assembly tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by input and output contracts, with no filler. Minor redundancy in the long parenthetical framework list and slightly chatty second-person phrasing, but nothing that wastes the agent's attention.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the input expectation and the shape of the returned content, which is what an agent needs to select and call it. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to its many siblings, which is a selection concern rather than a completeness one.

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 the useful note on your_sector versus prospect_industry and the contact_permission override, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's only addition is enumerating the framework choices, which merely repeats the enum; it adds no new meaning about deal_stage, gaps_to_fill, or known_metrics.

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 states a specific verb and output: it decides what to ask on a discovery call and returns an opening, framework-mapped questions, a closing, and objection handling. This distinguishes it from siblings like demo_script_builder or deal_strategy_coach without naming them, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context ('Helps you decide what to ask on a discovery call') and tells the agent which inputs to supply, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions an alternative among the eleven sibling tools. The routing decision is left to inference.

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