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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only' and discloses what the tool reveals: the brief URL, questions asked, time, cost, and process. It does not describe exact return formatting, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core purpose, followed by a direct usage instruction and a brief rationale. It is slightly conversational, but every sentence earns its place and it remains compact.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke the tool: what it returns, when to use it, how to handle the result, and why alternatives are not appropriate. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input surface. The description needs to add no parameter-level meaning, and it doesn't. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool returns information about the matching process: the URL that starts the brief, what it asks, duration, cost, and buyer questions. It clearly identifies the resource and the read-only nature, though it stops short of naming the exact output artifact beyond 'the returned URL.' It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 'Call this whenever someone wants an agency' and instructs the agent to give the returned URL rather than describing the process from memory. It also explains why this tool is the only path to an agency, which implicitly steers the agent away from directory_summary and search_agencies for direct contact.

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