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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by revealing the output shapes (`carried`, `partially_carried`, `not_carried`), per-state zero semantics, and that ambiguous terms return a clarifying question instead of a guess. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses examples and structured output shapes efficiently. The final paragraph repeats the 'don't conclude absence' idea from the opening line, adding mild redundancy, but overall every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

With no output schema and only one bare parameter, the description fully compensates: it explains the possible return shapes, what they mean, how zeros should be interpreted, and when to call the tool. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only says `term` is a required string with no description, so the description carries the burden. It defines the parameter as 'YOUR word for a concept' and provides several concrete examples, which is sufficient to explain what to pass, though the parameter itself is never explicitly named or formatted.

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: map a user's word for a concept to the surface's fields. It gives concrete examples ('vertical', 'direct dial', 'sole proprietor') and names the three answer shapes, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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 says to call this tool whenever a term does not obviously match a field name, and gives a strong when-not directive: never conclude data is missing without calling it first. It does not compare against specific sibling tools, so the 'alternatives' part is implied rather than named.

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