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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the check needs no account, stores nothing, creates no record, and that OEX asserts nothing about the business. This gives an agent a clear side-effect and privacy profile without relying on annotations.

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?

The description is four sentences with no filler: purpose, usage context, website dependency, behavioral guarantees, and the sandbox alternative are all included. The most important distinction 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 six-parameter, side-effect-light tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, privacy behavior, and website importance well enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not enumerate what the nine checks are or specify the response format, but those are not essential for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The schema already documents name, website, category, and description, and the website hint about nine checks is already present in the schema property description. The tool description adds only the broad framing that the operation runs on 'details you supply', with no meaningful new meaning for phone or address, which remain undocumented.

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 ('Run Business Health') on a real business from supplied details and explicitly frames it as the free public check. It distinguishes itself from create_sandbox_business and clearly signals this is not a retrieval or getter tool.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when someone asks about their own business, and it names create_sandbox_business as the alternative for workflow experimentation. It also tells the agent to supply the website to unlock the nine checks, which directs input selection.

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