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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete persistence behavior: a pointer-only pack is stored for 30 days, while raw profiles, names, contact details, identifiers, narratives, documents, and credentials are not stored. It also explains open-world handling with 'Missing facts remain NEEDS_INPUT' and clarifies the tool's non-submission, non-prediction, non-eligibility behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core use condition and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: attestation requirements, storage/privacy details, open-world behavior, and explicit non-goals. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 complex beta tool with a large input schema and output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria, user attestations, data retention behavior, missing-facts semantics, and non-goals. The output schema already handles return-value expectations, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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%, so the description carries real weight. It explains the meaning behind the three boolean attestation/consent parameters, and it characterizes the 'profile' parameter as organization, project, and readiness facts. The remaining request_id is already documented in the schema, and opportunity_id is constrained by a const value that also appears in the description.

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 verb and resource: the user wants to test opportunity 359701 against current actual non-personal organization, project, and readiness facts. It clearly differentiates this tool from the analyze/search siblings and explicitly clarifies that it does not draft or submit an application despite the 'submit' in the tool name.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('only when the user wants to test opportunity 359701') and lists mandatory attestation and consent prerequisites. It also states what the tool does not do, such as determining legal eligibility or submitting an application. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for those excluded use cases.

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