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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantive behavioral traits: the projection never exposes owner/principal/wallet/idempotency/private state, and budget is a declared cap rather than proof of reserved funds. This adds real context about data exposure and interpretation that annotations alone do not convey.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by exposure constraints and routing guidance. Every clause earns its place, though the density borders on jargon-heavy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it deliberately withholds, and how bidding is handled elsewhere. It is close to complete; the only gap is not naming the sibling discovery tool it competes with.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it does not confuse the issue.

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 (Discover) and resource (sanitized Production GEC Outcome Demands eligible for external-provider discovery), which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the look-alike sibling demand_radar, leaving the agent to infer the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by clarifying that this is discovery-only and that 'bid submission stays on authenticated User MCP via gec_bid_submit,' which is a useful scope boundary. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling discovery tools like demand_radar or market_snapshot.

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