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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely echoes this with "Read-only," adding no context beyond the structured data. It does not describe the kind of content returned, its size, or any constraints, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the read-only note is front-loaded at the end as a quick signal. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to be fully informative.

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 simple zero-parameter tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about what "what we do and the next steps" actually returns. As written, an agent knows the operation is a read but not what content to expect.

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 baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. Schema description coverage is 100% for the empty object, leaving no gap to compensate for.

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 largely restates the title ("What Marziale Technologies does") with "Read what we do," so it functions as tautology rather than a specific verb+resource statement. "and the next steps" is vague about what content is actually returned, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_questions or check_draft.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among ask_with_picker, check_draft, get_questions, or submit. The only hint is that it is a read operation, which the annotations already imply.

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