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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that content is stored in the business's own words and must be tied to a truvon_id, which shapes how to fill the fields. It does not disclose what happens on repeated reports (relevant given idempotentHint=false), nor any confirmation/return behavior.

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?

A single sentence with the trigger condition front-loaded and zero filler; the parenthetical example earns its place by disambiguating what counts as a reportable fact. Slightly dense with nested parentheses, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential framing: the trigger, the verbatim-recording requirement, and the identifier requirement. Gaps are minor — duplicate-report behavior and any success/failure response expectations — and the connection/search_id mechanics are handled in the schema.

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 every parameter including model, connection, and search_id is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only re-emphasizes two fields the schema already explains (the answer in its words, the truvon_id identifier) and adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance.

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 (record) and resource (a question and the answer the business gave, in its words), and anchors it to a concrete trigger example ('yes, certified kosher'). It is clearly a write of discovered facts rather than a lookup, which separates it from get_business_record, but it does not name or contrast with the nearby report_missing / report_outcome / answer_follow_up siblings.

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?

The condition is explicit and conditional: use this when a business has told you something its existing record lacks. That is a genuine when-to-use rule rather than an implied one. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. when the fact is already in the record or when the business is unlisted — the latter only appears in the schema).

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