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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the redacted nature and the limit of 3 results, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what 'full intelligence' entails, why it is intentionally hidden (e.g., requiring a paid subscription), or any limitations like response format or performance. The description gives a hint but is not sufficiently transparent for a tool that is clearly a teaser.

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 concise, using two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the main function. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the preview includes beyond redaction, what the response format is, or how parameters affect the search. The sibling tool 'scout_capabilities' might provide context, but the description does not leverage it. The description is too brief for a tool with this complexity, leaving many gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The tool has 6 parameters (city, limit, stage, trade, county, min_score) and the description only mentions that it returns up to 3 results, which aligns with the 'limit' parameter's max, but does not explicitly link them. The agent is left to infer the semantics from names alone, which is inadequate for complex parameters like 'min_score' and 'stage'.

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 the tool provides a 'free redacted preview of matching Northeast Ohio construction opportunities,' which is a specific verb (preview) and resource (construction opportunities). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'scout_capabilities' beyond the preview aspect, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 implies usage for getting a preview of opportunities but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus scout_capabilities. It mentions the free and redacted nature, but no exclusions or alternatives are named, making it clear but not comprehensive.

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