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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a report generation task. The description adds actionable behavioral details: the system crawls the site (non-destructive read operation), takes ~2 minutes, and incurs a cost ($29.99). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational insight beyond what annotations offer.

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 description is a single, well-structured paragraph with no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: action, input example, process summary, output hint, timing, and cost. The use of an action emoji and clear formatting makes it scannable and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (crawling, analysis, scoring), the description covers input, process, output (report_id for polling), time, and cost. Output schema exists (not shown but implied by polling instructions). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but the overall information is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter (target_url) with 100% schema description coverage. The schema description already thoroughly explains the parameter's purpose and format. The tool description reiterates the URL example but does not add significant new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers everything.

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 clearly states the action: 'Start a full AI market intelligence report for any website.' It specifies the verb (start), resource (market report), and target (any website). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like aipush.market.report_status (polling) and other analysis tools, making selection unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context: provide a URL, the system crawls, identifies competitors, etc., returns report_id for polling, and mentions approximate time (2 minutes) and cost ($29.99). It implicitly tells when to use (when a market report is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. This is adequate for most scenarios.

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