Explain it for this audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it reads stored engagement data, translates signals from the topic for different audiences, and that the jargon table lists only terms appearing in the topic. This goes well beyond the schema. It does not mention potential side effects, but the read-and-build wording makes mutation unlikely.

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 action and organized into clear behaviors. It is longer than necessary because it repeats the same content in Japanese and English, but each clause carries substantive information about the tool's behavior, audience parsing, and output constraints. The duplication is a minor inefficiency, not padding.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain the return value. It says it builds and returns a pitch and mentions the jargon table, but it does not describe the output structure, how the lang parameter affects the output, or the dependency on an existing engagement being active. Some key operational context is missing for a tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the audience parameter is interpreted (seniority and functional patch are read from free text) and how the topic parameter's signals (money, dates, past failures, risk) are used to shape the output. This helps the agent craft better parameter values.

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 action ('Build the pitch from what you wrote in topic plus the stored engagement') and resource ('stored engagement (readiness, risks, stakeholders, work packages, dates)'). It clearly distinguishes the tool by its audience-translation behavior, which is unique among the sibling list. The verb is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 implies the tool is for constructing an audience-specific pitch from a written topic and stored engagement data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or name any sibling tools. It gives no exclusion criteria or decision guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the described behavior.

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