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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real substance: the search spans all registration types, includes inactive registrations, and the verdict is advisory because CAC makes the final call. That last caveat is exactly the kind of expectation-setting an agent needs before treating an empty result as confirmed availability.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then dense result-interpretation guidance, closing with the decisive caveat about CAC's final call. Every sentence carries information; nothing repeats the title, the annotations, or the schema.

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 no enumeration, yet the description goes further and explains how to read the two match categories and what an empty close_matches implies. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'name' fully. The description adds mild semantic framing by calling it a name to match 'or similar to', implying fuzzy matching rather than exact lookup, but supplies no format, length, or normalization guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope: search CAC's public registry for names matching or similar to a given name, across every registration type (business names, companies, LLPs, trustees). The availability-judgment framing makes the intent unambiguous, though the sibling search_cac_register is never named or distinguished.

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: an agent can infer this is a pre-registration name-risk check because the description explains that CAC rejects too-close names. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative despite a closely related sibling (search_cac_register) that an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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