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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial interpretive context beyond them: the EIN is never returned, only presence/absence; `known` excludes fields the owner has not confirmed; `missing` is ordered with missing_value vs confirmation_required reasons; and it explicitly warns that unequal question/screen counts can be legitimate. It also discloses the key limitation that configured registration does not prove recipient-specific sending permission or delivery, and that a null registration does not prove texting is impossible — exactly the kind of boundary an agent can misuse if unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the bulk of the text is an explanation of return fields (`known`, `suggestions`, `missing`, `next_question`, `question_progress`) even though an output schema exists and presumably documents those same fields. Backticked identifiers make it scannable, but several sentences (e.g., 'Dashboard/API presentation is unchanged.') add little for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers safety, interpretation caveats, and the scope boundary between configured registration and actual send authorization. Nothing critical is missing; the only gap is that it never says where `business_id` comes from or when to prefer a sibling status tool.

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?

With a single self-describing required string (`business_id`) and no other parameters, the semantic burden is minimal, so this sits near the 0-param baseline of 4. The description adds no explicit meaning to `business_id` (e.g., format or where to obtain it), but the descriptive gap is small.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read where a business stands on its own carrier registration for business texting,' followed by a concrete enumeration of what is returned (saved details, payment, filing stage, sales-texts-allowed, next step). That distinguishes it well from the write siblings (save_/start_/submit_text_registration). It does not explicitly name an alternative read tool such as get_business_verification or get_channel_status, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Read' and the closing 'Read-only' — the natural inference is 'call this to check registration status.' There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the sibling status tools, no prerequisites (e.g., what business_id must reference), and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing decision.

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