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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are restricted to companies with dated, attributed reviews, ratings are means of on-record reviews, Haulest does not rank by payment, and coverage is limited to US/CA/UK. Minor gaps remain (pagination behavior, handling of places with no matching companies).

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, both earning their place, with scope and return fields front-loaded before the usage instruction. The first sentence is dense with a long field list, which is justified by the absence of an output schema, though it reads heavily.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (average rating, review count, newest review date, USDOT, profile URL). Parameters are fully documented by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (place, market, sort, limit, minReviews) are already documented in the schema, including enums and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists moving companies) plus precise scope: places where Haulest holds dated, attributed reviews, limited to US, Canada, and UK. It also enumerates the returned fields and explicitly names the follow-up tool, so an agent can distinguish it from get_mover_profile without opening either schema.

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?

"Use it when someone wants movers in a place; follow with the profile tool for one company" gives a clear trigger condition and routes a common adjacent case to the right sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., licence checks belong to check_mover_licence), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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