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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses the Qleerly Plus plan requirement and frames the negative outcome as a legitimate result, which shapes how an agent interprets the response. Gaps remain (latency, cost, whether it is purely read-only), but the disclosure is meaningfully richer than typical.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by interpretation guidance and the entitlement requirement. No filler.

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 single-URL check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what, the interpretation stance, and the plan requirement. It is nearly complete; only result-shape and sibling differentiation are absent.

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?

Only one parameter (url) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the framing of 'the business behind the URL,' which is marginal, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: runs a web search the way an AI answer engine would and reports whether the business is found/recommended. Clear and specific, but it never names the sibling audit_site, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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 implied ('runs a real web search... reports whether the business is found or recommended') and it usefully clarifies that a negative result is valid. However, no explicit when-to-use condition or alternative to audit_site is given.

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