Start MVR relational-readiness preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'never authorizes,' 'checks market trust, permission, embeddedness, stakeholder readiness, evidence gaps,' and 'web research can supply evidence but does not replace MVR.' It also imposes constraints on evidence submission ('consented, data-minimized, redacted, or aggregated; never secrets'), going beyond what annotations convey.

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 verbose and repetitive. The decision list is duplicated: 'pre-MVP build, entry, BNPL, investment, partnership, or scale' and later 'enter, launch, scale, invest, lend, BNPL, partner, or deploy decisions.' The 'Use when asked to ignore, fabricate, or transfer evidence' clause is ambiguous. The structure has headers but the redundancy undermines conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining how parameters relate to the preflight checks. It does not. It describes what the tool does at a high level and usage boundaries, but an agent would struggle to know what values to provide for fields like 'stage', 'entity', or 'evidence_available'. The output schema exists, but the input side remains underspecified.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (stage, entity, sector, country, question, use_case, etc.). The only parameter-related guidance is the general instruction to submit consented evidence, which vaguely relates to 'evidence_available' but does not clarify it. This is insufficient for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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: 'Use this MVR public decision-governance preflight before AI recommends...' The resource is specific ('MVR relational-readiness preflight') and the verb 'start' implies an initial gate. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it 'never authorizes' and is a preflight check, contrasting with decision-oriented tools like mvr_decision_check.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections. It lists specific decision contexts (enter, launch, scale, invest, lend, BNPL, partner, deploy) and exclusions (not internal data lookup or glossary, skip definitions of MVR, capitals, GDP, etc.). This clearly guides the agent on when to select this tool versus alternatives.

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