Electional-Day Suitability

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) already cover the safety profile, and the description does not add any behavioral context beyond a group label. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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: a single sentence plus a group label and example. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no fluff, but could be slightly expanded for better guidance.

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 no output schema, the description fails to describe the tool's return value (e.g., is it a score, text, or boolean?). The 7 parameters and 2 required fields suggest complexity, and the description does not help the agent understand what to expect from the tool's response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value. The example request illustrates usage but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 indicates the tool evaluates suitability of a proposed launch date for a venture type, distinguishing it from other business astrology tools in the sibling list. However, it does not specify what 'suitability' means (e.g., a score or analysis), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like business_expansion_timing or business_founding_chart. The description lacks context for when the tool is appropriate, forcing the agent to infer from the name alone.

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