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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a federal-level result and that it is not legal advice, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it behaves on invalid input, or what the exact output format is (e.g., a score, pass/fail, etc.). The lack of detail on output structure is a gap.

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?

The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a link to a related report and a legal disclaimer without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and output scope but leaves ambiguity about the exact return format (what constitutes a 'result'). It doesn't explain how the score is presented or interpreted, and it doesn't clarify whether the tool handles partial inputs or error cases. Given the 8 parameters and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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%, so all eight parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't conflict with or enhance it.

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 clearly states the tool's function: scoring a subscription business's signup/cancellation flow against specific US laws. It names the specific legal frameworks (FTC Section 5/ROSCA, state laws) and distinguishes its output scope (federal-level result) from the separate state breakdown. This is a specific verb+resource with no ambiguity.

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 description gives explicit guidance on output scope: it returns the federal-level result now, while the full state breakdown with citations is a separate paid report. This implies the tool is for a quick federal check, and if state details are needed, the user should purchase the report. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when...' but the scope is clear.

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