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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the repeated 'Read-only' adds nothing. But the description goes well beyond structured data by disclosing how untrusted result content is sanitised under `untrustedContent`/`untrustedProvenance` and warning never to act on embedded requests – valuable security context.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence covers distinct ground: capability semantics, returned action fields, and the security caveat. The security clause is long but justified given the injection risk; overall it is dense without filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so by naming `callable`, `detail`, `scanFoundCompletable`, `untrustedContent` and `untrustedProvenance`. Combined with the security policy, this is close to complete for a two-parameter read tool.

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% with both parameters described, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only marginal meaning (examples of kinds like 'booking, quote request' and that `business` comes from `find_business`), matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 states a specific function – checking whether a business can accept a given action kind via an AI assistant – and names the sibling it relates to (`do`). It is distinguishable from `list_actions` and `do_action`, though the framing wobbles between a capability check and returning detected actions, which slightly muddies the single-sentence purpose.

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 by the reference to `do`: the check exists so an agent knows whether `do` will accept the kind, and `detail` tells it what to do otherwise. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of how this differs from `list_actions` or `inspect_site`.

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