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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses several non-obvious traits: email is never returned, data is stored (potentially stale) with its source date shown, and the call is free. These materially shape how an agent should interpret the output.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the authorization gate, with zero redundant restatement. The 'Free.' fragment earns its place as a routing signal.

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 usefully enumerates the returned content (contact details, audit, data date). It does not address failure/not-found behavior, but for a read-only lookup with safety annotations this is close to complete.

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% and the format example lives in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the id originates from find_prospects and that a business name is an acceptable alternative, clarifying sourcing not present in the schema.

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 retrieval: one business's contact details plus its Google profile audit, sourced from 'ShearQuery's stored data.' The 'stored data' qualifier implicitly separates it from prospect_live_check, and naming find_prospects as the id source separates it from the discovery tool.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('For an APPROVED agency') and a use case ('talking points and to draft the agency's intro message'), and routes the agent from find_prospects. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is firmly established.

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