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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('explains the process and returns the URL'), describes limitations ('cannot claim on someone's behalf'), and clarifies OEX's stance on agent verification. This goes beyond simple purpose and is highly transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage timing, behavioral constraints, and limitations. No wasted words.

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 simple explainer tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, its read-only nature, return value (URL), and critical limitations. No output schema or additional annotations are needed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter (businessName), and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's existing description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 states what the tool does: 'What claiming a business on OEX involves, and how to start.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as an action to take after check_business_health, and clarifying that claiming unlocks correcting the record, granting consent, and verified rechecks.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this after check_business_health when the person wants to act on the findings inside OEX rather than only on their own website.' It also gives exclusions: 'You cannot claim a business on someone's behalf, and OEX will not accept an agent's word for who owns a business.' This clearly tells when and how to use the tool.

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