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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the CFPB data source, the narrative-derived count coverage window and cutoff date, the no-key/free/attribution requirement, and the fact that dispute-route data is read from companies' own sites with read dates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and packs useful details about outputs, source, time range, and cost/attribution into two sentences. However, the first sentence is dense and run-on, enumerating many outputs in a way that could be easier to parse with structured formatting.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return content, the data source, the temporal scope, and usage constraints such as attribution. It does not specify the exact output shape or clarify how the state parameter affects results, but the detail provided is adequate for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a few examples of company names and clarifies the free-text situation behavior, but it does not substantially deepen the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific resource class (US tenant- and employment-screening companies), a specific verb ('return'), and enumerates four concrete outputs: verified dispute route, FCRA clock, CFPB complaint record, and the party responsible for fixing errors. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are about parking, NYC, and MTD topics.

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?

It gives clear input conditions ('Given a US tenant- or employment-screening company') and explains the situation-parameter behavior ('never a resolved guide'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are topically unrelated, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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