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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is async, returns a job_id, defaults to 'deep' mode, and allows an optional caller ID. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three clear sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds async behavior and defaults, and finishes with the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (6 params, async, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input constraints, async nature, polling instruction, default mode, and caller identification. It lacks explanations of parameter formats (e.g., what constitutes a valid url or deck_text), but the mutual exclusion rule provides structural context.

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 only 17%, but the description compensates by explaining the mutual exclusivity of url/description/pitch_company_id/deck_text and the meaning of mode (defaults to deep) and requested_by (shown in activity feed). Some parameters lack detail, but the constraint is critical.

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 tool's purpose: 'Assess one product's obsolescence risk.' It specifies the action (assess) and the target (product obsolescence risk), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_assessment by noting async behavior and returning a job_id.

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 guidance on when to use the tool by requiring exactly one input from a set of alternatives. It also instructs to poll get_assessment for results, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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