understand_idea

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only analysis operation and lists the analytical outputs, but it does not state whether any side effects occur, how result are returned, or any limitations for vague ideas. This is acceptable but not thorough.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb 'Analyze' and quickly enumerates the output points, making every word valuable.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description lists the expected analytical outputs but omits details on optional parameter semantics and return format. It is adequate for a simple analysis tool but leaves gaps for an agent to correctly invoke with optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly clarifies the 'idea' parameter ('raw product or startup idea'), leaving the optional parameters industry, geography, and targetAudience completely unexplained. The agent would not know how to populate or how they affect the analysis.

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 action: 'Analyze a raw product or startup idea' and specifies the output dimensions (industry category, core problem, target segment, value proposition, competitor search keywords). This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on competitors.

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 phrase 'raw product or startup idea' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is the first step before more specialized competitor research. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or cite alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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