assess_company_readiness

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the output is a bounded 0–100 index and confidence scales with how many metrics are supplied, which tells the agent this is a tolerant, partial-input scoring call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced before how to use it and how input affects confidence. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: the 0–100 index and the '#1 growth constraint' output are named. It does not describe the shape of the remaining response fields, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and the metrics object already enumerates every accepted field with percentage-formatting rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's metric families ('stage-fit, confidence, NRR / CAC-payback / pipeline-coverage') roughly mirror those inputs but do not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scores a company's Revenue Readiness Index (0–100)') plus the input basis (operating metrics) and the headline output (score plus #1 growth constraint). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_portfolio_readiness_rollup, which aggregates rather than scoring one company.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts ('screen a target or assess a portfolio company') and a practical rule for input handling ('Pass the metrics you have; more metrics = higher confidence'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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