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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the call is a handoff that returns a verification page, and it explicitly disclaims granting ownership or creating a membership — the two side effects an agent would most plausibly assume. It omits caller auth requirements and what happens if the business is already claimed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The prerequisite and the action come first; the negative scope statement follows as a compact boundary. Nothing is repeated from the title.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the effect, the return value shape (a page), and the negative side effects. The remaining gap is failure behavior — already-claimed businesses, permission errors — which an agent would have to discover at runtime.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Point at a live business' does imply business_id selects an existing, active business (the 'live' qualifier is real added meaning), but it never states the UUID format or what counts as 'live'. Adequate, not thorough.

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 action ('point at a live business'), names the resource, and describes the concrete outcome ('return the page where the person proves control'). It also explicitly bounds the effect ('Does not grant ownership or create a membership'), which separates it from a membership-granting sibling an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives a clear sequencing precondition — use this after setup_account with kind claim — which is exactly the context an agent needs to order its calls. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., business already claimed, or an alternative claim-completion tool), so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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