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 real context beyond that — the enumerated signal sources and the fact that each item carries a source link and date seen — but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or what happens when query matches nothing.

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 core deliverable is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the long source enumeration, while dense, maps to the signal_type enum and therefore earns its place. Slightly over-stuffed in one sentence but no filler.

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 carries the burden of describing returns — it does so by naming the macro windows and the signal categories with their source/date provenance. Combined with readOnly annotations and 80% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ranking/pagination behavior is unstated.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully clarifies the `query` parameter's dual role (a company name triggers the per-company signal block) and that window_type=public_signal requires a query — information not present in the schema descriptions.

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 resource (enterprise buying windows and F500 pilot programs) and enumerates what is returned: macro replacement cycles (SAP ECC 2027, VMware cliffs, CMS mandates) plus dated public buying signals. It is clearly distinct from find_prospects or search_startups, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the boundary.

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 gives implied usage guidance ('Name a company in `query` to also get its dated public buying signals', 'Company-level only', and the note that public_signal needs a query), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative statement against the prospect/sourcing siblings.

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