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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('candidate files with status and match evidence'), which signals a fuzzy/non-exact lookup, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, permissions, or what happens when no match is found.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the capability and accepted identifier types come first, the return behavior second. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it accepts, and roughly what it returns. Only pagination/result-limit behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for a lookup 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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'Business name or registry number' by enumerating the accepted registry identifiers (FEI, LEI, SEC CIK, DUNS, NDC labeler code, state licence/entity number), which genuinely improves how the agent fills the field.

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 ('Find Jid business files') and scopes the accepted inputs precisely (name or any of seven registry-number types). An agent can distinguish this candidate-lookup tool from siblings like get_business_file and verify_business without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by 'Find ... returns candidate files', which suggests a discovery step before get_business_file/verify_business, but no alternative is named and there are no explicit when/when-not conditions. Adequate but the routing decision is left to inference.

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