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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description goes further by disclosing the response semantics — 'yes', 'partly' with conditions, or 'no' — plus the accompanying supported business types, limitations, plans, prices and links, which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then a scope boundary. Each sentence carries information; the only minor slack is the somewhat dense enumeration of return fields ('business types, limitations, plans, prices and links'), which could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining what comes back (verdict plus supporting details). For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete; the only remaining gap is guidance on framing a good fit query versus a preview request.

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 both parameters (needs, business_type) are already documented with examples. The description only echoes them as 'business type and stated needs' and adds no format, length, or phrasing guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks Amfion's capabilities, pricing and suitability for a business type and stated needs') and explicitly bounds scope: product capabilities rather than facts about a specific business. An agent can tell this apart from the preview-building siblings, which assemble a front desk rather than assess fit.

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: an agent can infer it should be called when someone asks whether Amfion suits their business, but the description never states when to use it versus alternatives such as ask_front_desk_preview, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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