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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: it explains filler-word removal, keyword-to-industry mapping, OR-style matching, that unmatched locations are silently dropped with a response note, that low-evidence agencies stay unranked, and that no numeric score is returned. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a search tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first two words and most sentences carry distinct information about parsing, ranking, and filtering. It is somewhat long and the enumeration of ranked industries ('Ecom, Legal, SaaS, Finance, and Service') reads as reference detail that could be trimmed, so not a 5.

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 7 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so — industry, services, evidence level/summary, profile URL, contact URL, rank presence, and location notes. It omits return-size/pagination behavior tied to limit and does not mention the user_request parameter's role, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies how a plain-language query is normalized and mapped onto an industry, and how service/location/zip filters renumber matches from 1 in existing industry order. It does not elaborate on limit or user_request, but those are already documented in the schema.

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?

'Search Agency Standings' gives a specific verb and resource, and the sentence about result fields and ranking makes the tool's output distinguishable. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like search_work, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the mechanics of query parsing and filtering ('A plain-language query drops filler words...'). The one routing hint is that get_agency preserves each agency's industry rank, but there is no explicit 'use this tool when...' statement or exclusion versus search_work or list_industries_and_services.

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