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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the comparison dimensions: buyer-fit scores, verified commercial deal claims (T1-T4), pilot mechanics, and agent readiness, plus that results are unsponsored.

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 compact and front-loaded, naming the comparison scope first and then the evaluated dimensions. Every sentence contributes to tool selection.

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 read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about inputs and comparison criteria to select and invoke it correctly. It does not explain the exact return structure or how unknown vendors are handled, but the annotations and schema cover the safety and parameter essentials.

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 both vendors and buyer_context are already documented in the schema. The description's examples and 2-to-5 range reinforce the schema but add no new syntax or format details, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: side-by-side comparison of 2 to 5 B2B AI startups. The scope and comparison dimensions distinguish it from single-vendor profile, ranking, or search tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

Clearly indicates the tool is for comparing 2 to 5 vendors and gives examples like ['Glean', 'Notion']. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as find_alternatives or get_profile, so there is no when-not guidance, but the use context is clear.

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