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.