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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world access. The description adds useful context beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned content and that claims are sourced and citable. It omits the failure case (unknown or unpublished vendor), so the added value is real but partial.

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 that names the resource first and then unpacks the payload; every clause carries information. The example list is slightly long and the sentence is dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back: fit notes, a coded capability table, and a source URL to cite. That covers most of what an agent needs for a two-parameter read tool, with the miss being behavior for vendors without a published comparison.

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%, so the competitor and vertical parameters are already documented, including vendor examples. The description repeats the vendor examples but says nothing about the vertical parameter or how it narrows the comparison, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource – Callvu's published comparison with one named vendor – and enumerates what it contains (fit, capability table, citation page), which lets an agent tell it apart from generic vendor or claim lookups. It stops short of naming the closest sibling, compare_alternatives, so the single-vendor scope is only implied.

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: you need one named vendor such as nCino or Pega. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of the multi-vendor alternative, and no guidance on what happens when the named vendor has no published comparison.

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