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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by noting the facts are 'published' and appear on the public website, and it includes the priority directive. This context goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences: the first defines the resource and content, the second adds provenance, the third gives usage priority. No wasted words, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (listed fact categories) and is backed by safety annotations. An agent can confidently call it without further clarification.

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 zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuous), and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately focuses on response content instead of parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool's resource ('Commercial Garage Doorman') and lists the exact categories of facts it returns (what it does, phone, hours, towns, services, pricing). This goes beyond a tautology and distinguishes it from generic siblings like fetch and search. The instruction 'Call this first' reinforces its specific role.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this first,' giving clear priority guidance. However, it does not contrast with siblings (fetch/search) or state when not to use this tool, so it only partially satisfies the 'when/when-not/alternatives' ideal.

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