quick_scan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it is free and requires no context, but does not significantly extend behavioral understanding beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise, with a clear header line followed by usage guidance and parameter descriptions. The Args and Returns sections are structured. However, some formatting (e.g., dashes in 'Returns:' block) could be cleaner, but overall it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool has no required parameters and a simple output, the description covers the key inputs, output structure (including next_step and is_free), and usage context. It does not address error behavior or edge cases, but for a straightforward read-only scan, it is sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes an Args section that describes each parameter (company_name, industry, description, lang) with brief semantics, such as the purpose of lang for language selection. This compensates well for the lack of 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 performs a 'FREE quick scan' that identifies '3 generic problems' from a company name and optional description. It specifies the output and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'business_diagnose' by positioning itself as a precursor.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before proposing business_diagnose', providing clear guidance on when to use it relative to a sibling. It implies it is for a quick, free assessment but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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