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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld; the description adds context beyond that: no account required, no register queried, and an explicit output shape (classes plus per-class reasoning plus a closing caveat about what the report does not mean). It does not cover error cases or how many classes typically come back, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose and boundary are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle paragraph on the 45-class numbering (class 9 vs 42 vs 35) is educational filler that does not change how the agent calls the tool. Roughly a third of the text could be cut without losing invocation-relevant 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?

There is no output schema, and the description fills that gap by describing what is returned (classes with reasoning and a caveat). Combined with the annotations' safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'description' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: "Takes a description of the business" tells the agent exactly what to supply, though it gives no guidance on length, detail, or whether goods/services must be enumerated.

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 (maps/suggests) and resource (Nice classes) and explicitly disclaims what it is not: "no register is searched", which separates it from check_names and screen_mark. The parenthetical contrast of "is my name taken" vs "taken in WHAT" makes the tool's job unmistakable.

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?

Gives a clear context for use (a business needs to know which classes to file in) and a negative boundary (it does not search a register, so it is not a name availability check). It never names the sibling to call instead for name checks, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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