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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the ranking order, the distinction of 'REAL' evidence, and the LOUD EMPTY warning about not treating generated ICP as a customer. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and includes a crucial caveat without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral caveat. It doesn't detail the return format, but the ranking order and usage guidance make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description's ranking order relates to the class enum but does not add direct parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List ranked REAL Customer Evidence') and the resource (evidence for a company), with an explicit ranking order. It distinguishes itself from generic list tools through the 'REAL' qualifier and ranking, but does not name a sibling tool to differentiate, so it's not a 5.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use before customer-facing work or when asked what real customers have said.' It also includes a behavioral caveat about LOUD EMPTY when no evidence exists. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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