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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent), it discloses bounded scope (three businesses), a revision prerequisite implying optimistic-concurrency failure, provider rate limits, and a concurrency warning. The caveat that sampled complaints are leads, not confirmed needs or purchase proof usefully sets expectations about output quality.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then constraints. The quality caveat earns its place by disambiguating what the findings mean, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, and it covers scope, concurrency, and evidence caveats. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage, the unaddressed target/geography/problemCategories semantics leave an agent under-informed about how to shape the scan.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate, but it only obliquely touches two params (revision via "current revision", target via "up to three businesses"). The meaning of target, geography, and problemCategories is left entirely to the thin schema, leaving most parameters under-explained.

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 verb and scope: "run a bounded public review scan of up to three businesses and retain sourced findings in your private workspace." The resource (business reviews) and the side effect (retention in a workspace) are both explicit. It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish from, e.g., research_businesses or scan_review_pain_points, so it stops short of a 5.

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 operational constraints ("Requires current revision", "do not launch duplicate concurrent scans", "Uses normal provider limits") but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives like research_businesses or start_lead_search. Usage is implied by the description of the scan, not spelled out relative to siblings.

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