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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: latency ('Slower'), rate limiting, and that CAC returns suggested alternatives when a name collides. However, it doesn't say what a failing/low score means for the caller or whether repeated calls are throttled per session.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return values, then the cost/usage caveat. Every sentence carries information; only mild density in packing latency and rate limiting into a single clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still previews them usefully. The one real gap is how to source an exact picklist line-of-business value, which matters because that parameter is required and enum-free.

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?

Coverage is 50%: line_of_business is documented in the schema and the description reinforces that it must be the 'exact CAC line of business,' while proposed_name is undocumented in both places. The description adds the constraint that the LOB must match exactly rather than approximately, but offers no guidance on how to obtain a valid picklist entry (e.g., via search_line_of_business).

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 verb and resource ('Run a proposed business name... through CAC's own compliance and similarity checker') and distinguishes it from the sibling availability/name-generation tools by emphasizing an external CAC check. The agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 a clear selection condition: 'Slower and rate limited: use it for a name the user is seriously considering,' which implicitly routes cheap exploration to siblings like check_name_availability or generate_business_names. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly or stating when not to call it at all.

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