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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that every returned name is already run against CAC's registry and enumerates the availability outcomes, including the degraded "unchecked" state when CAC's search is busy. That failure-mode disclosure is genuinely valuable and not derivable from annotations or schema, though it stops short of saying how many names are returned or whether the call consumes credits.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Nothing repeats the title 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?

For a simple read-only generator with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers action, scope and result semantics adequately. The remaining gap is practical scale information — how many names come back — which an agent may need before invoking it.

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 schema already explains `idea`, `name_type` (including the Ltd vs. Ventures distinction) and `line_of_business`. The description adds no meaning to any of the three inputs — the only detailed term it discusses, `availability`, is a return field rather than a parameter, so the 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Brainstorm") with a specific resource ("CAC-registrable business names") qualified by "for an idea," which is far more precise than the title alone. It implicitly separates itself from check_name_availability and search_cac_register by generating multiple candidate names with availability pre-computed, though it never names those siblings outright.

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 want candidate names to pick from before registering), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative such as check_name_availability for validating a name you already have. The agent must infer the routing decision from the phrase "brainstorm."

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