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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond that: the report is 'read and listed for every agent', i.e. it becomes publicly visible to other agents — important context an agent would not infer from the annotations. It says nothing about validation, rejection, or what a submission returns, so the added value is real but thin.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the eligibility condition is front-loaded before the payload list. The first sentence is dense and slightly run-on with nested parentheticals, which costs a little readability, but every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the required payload, and the downstream effect (listed for all agents, directory grows). It leaves open whether the call can fail or what confirmation is returned, but the essential decision information is present.

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 80%, so the schema already explains most fields, including the meaningful constraints (website must be the business's own, connection only needed when the app did not sign in itself). The description's field list ('name, its own website, phone, address and the town, with the need and the search_id') largely restates the schema, though pairing 'the need' with 'the search_id' hints that both are needed for the report to be useful. Baseline 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 action (send/report a business) on a specific resource (a business Truvon does not list), and explicitly scopes it against the sibling that establishes the precondition ('check_places_results said so'). An agent can distinguish this from find_local_businesses or get_business_record without opening any schema.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: the business must fit the user's need, be found elsewhere (web, map), and be absent from Truvon per check_places_results. That is a real when-to-use gate. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative action (e.g. what to do if the business is already listed), so it is not a full 5.

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