Business Name Desk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing jurisdictional coverage (named live states vs. link-only fallback), the three distinct checks performed, and the shape of the return payload (closest registered names, official state search URL, link to full result). This is exactly the coverage/limitation context an agent needs before invoking a lookup whose completeness varies by state.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core check and then appends scope, coverage and return details—no filler or repetition. It is slightly heavy as a run-on with an embedded parenthetical list of states, which could have been split for scanability, but every clause carries real information.

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, yet the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the vary-by-state behavior. Combined with the annotations carrying the safety profile and the full schema coverage on both parameters, nothing material is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented including format examples ("TX" or "Texas", "Blue Ridge Coffee"), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further parameter semantics such as normalization behavior or what happens if a state name is unrecognized.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Check whether a business name looks available") and immediately scopes it to US state registers, distinguishing it from the sibling list_states which only enumerates states. It also names the three checks performed (state register, .com, restricted words), so an agent knows exactly what question this tool answers.

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 implied rather than stated: the tool is for name-availability checks, and the description usefully discloses that only ten jurisdictions are live while other states return an official search link. However, it never gives explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor does it point to list_states as the way to discover supported states, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is in what the response contains: per-state live-search status, the data source, its currency, and official search links for non-covered states. That is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though the output shape itself is not characterized.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers the subject (states searched live) before the payload details. It is dense with clauses but each clause carries information; it could be tightened slightly with punctuation or a short second sentence.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies the missing piece — what data comes back and why it matters (freshness and fallback links). It stops short of describing the return structure or ordering, which is a minor gap for a reference-list tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; the baseline applies. No parameter-related misinformation is present.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the US states whose business register Business Name Desk searches live') plus the payload contents (data source, freshness, official links). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling check_business_name, though the sibling is not named 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the coverage/reference lookup to consult before running check_business_name. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the sibling tool.

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