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

The description opens with 'Read-only', compensating for the empty annotations by clearly signaling no side effects. It also discloses what the tool returns (a URL) and the context around it. However, it does not specify the exact response format or whether additional text accompanies the URL, which matters in the absence of an output schema.

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 and front-loaded with the critical 'Read-only' behavior, followed by practical usage instructions. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool provides or when/how to use it. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to call it, and how to handle its output. It also explains why this is the only path to an agency. It does not fully specify the output shape, but enough is provided for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter gap to fill. The description adds sufficient context about what the tool does with no input needed.

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 clearly states the tool provides the buyer-matching process: the URL that starts the brief, what it asks, duration, cost, and first buyer questions. It also identifies the tool's output as a URL to give to the user. It is distinguishable from siblings because it describes the only route to an agency through Ashton & Forge, while siblings cover directory/search concerns.

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 explicitly says to call this 'whenever someone wants an agency' and instructs the agent to return the URL rather than describe the process from memory. It also explains why this tool is necessary: the directory is anonymised and there is no one to contact directly. It does not explicitly contrast with search_agencies or directory_summary, but the usage trigger is clear.

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