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

The description adds a key behavioral insight beyond the annotations: 'The response carries explicit "self-reported" framing so agents don't upgrade tenant claims to verified facts.' This tells the agent about the trustworthiness of the data and how to handle it, which is not conveyed by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. 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 two sentences, tightly packed with information: the resource returned and the specific use case plus behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a critical behavioral caveat. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for 'slug' ('Business slug identifier'). The tool description itself does not add extra parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. It does not detract or enhance beyond the baseline.

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 uses specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'business's self-reported licenses, insurance, bonding, and certifications.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_availability or get_cancellation_policy, which cover different aspects of a business.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'for trust-sensitive verticals (contractors, healthcare, legal, locksmiths) when a user asks "are they licensed?" or "are they insured?".' This provides clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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