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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing that results are unverified suggestions requiring registry and domain checks, which tells the agent how to treat the output.

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 tight sentences: the first delivers purpose and inputs, the second delivers the verification caveat. Nothing is redundant and the most important framing is front-loaded.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only generator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers inputs, style range, and the verification caveat. Only the size/shape of a returned name set is unstated, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with enum values and the variant semantics fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that city and keyword are optional and that style is one of five, adding no new syntax or format detail — baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete deliverable — name ideas for a cleaning business — with the optional inputs (city, keyword) and the five-style constraint. It is clearly distinguishable from pricing/profit/guide siblings, though it does not name or route against them explicitly.

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 only guidance is post-hoc: verify names with the state business registry and check domain availability. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the guide or pricing siblings, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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