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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing which fields are returned and flagging that dateShipped and featuredIn are only present 'when the library has them' — a genuine coverage caveat. Pagination/limit and result-ordering behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the returned content, followed by the reason to call it. It is dense but every phrase carries information; the only minor cost is a slightly run-on field enumeration that a list would present more scannably.

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, the return value is the main gap the description must fill, and it does so by listing the returned fields and their conditional availability. Safety is covered by annotations and all parameters by the schema, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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?

All 7 parameters carry full schema descriptions (100% coverage), including the enum-like value lists for type, service, industry and platform, so the description need not compensate. It adds no parameter-level detail of its own, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 verb and resource ('Returns credited examples of agency work') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what kind of artifact this produces. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_agencies tool, which is the closest alternative, so it falls 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 implied through the downstream intent ('so you can show real examples of agency work, then offer to connect the user with the agency that built it'), which tells the agent what scenario this serves. However, no conditions for choosing this over search_agencies or list_industries_and_services are given, and no exclusions are stated.

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