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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a new report consumes one of the reader's report quota, that repeats for the same company do not, and that the call can return asynchronously with an ETA. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and it explains the practical consequence of each.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then inputs, then return behavior, then the disambiguation loop, then scope exclusion. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still covers the two return shapes (immediate report vs. queued with ETA) and the multi-match list. An agent has everything needed to call it, interpret the result, and handle the follow-up 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds procedural meaning the schema cannot, notably that the choice token must be supplied together with the same name after a multi-match response. It also frames place as an optional disambiguator ('if known'), reinforcing the schema's intent.

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+resource ('checks companies') and immediately clarifies what 'check' means operationally: a stored recent report is returned, or a new report is started. It never names get_report or list_reports, so the boundary with those siblings (retrieve an existing report vs. trigger/inspect a company) is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Clear when-to-use ('when someone asks about a company or wants one checked'), plus concrete handling for the ambiguous-name case: list matches, ask the reader, re-call with the choice token. It also states an exclusion ('LightRay checks companies, not people'), but does not explicitly route to get_report/list_reports for follow-up retrieval.

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