analyze_setup_decision

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns an ordered list of six tool calls plus synthesis instructions and should be followed by synthesize_report.

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 and compact: it states purpose, return shape, and the required follow-up workflow in three short sentences. There is no wasted text.

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?

For a meta-planning tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned, which sibling tools are orchestrated, and the required next step. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 activity, industry, and budget_aed are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: building a cross-tool analysis plan for a founder setup decision. It also names the exact six tools included in the plan, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like setup_advisor or synthesize_report.

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?

It clearly explains the workflow: execute the returned plan, then call synthesize_report. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus calling individual sibling tools directly, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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