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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read against a closed, static data set. The description adds the scope of returned facts and hints at a 'where to read more' pointer, but discloses nothing further about freshness, versioning, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource before the content list. The enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what facts are available; no filler or repetition.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return content, and it does so by enumerating the fact categories. A note on freshness or static vs. dynamic data would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for calling 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter-like details.

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 ('returns verifiable facts about KEILTY') and enumerates the exact content domains: founding year, doors under management, location, markets, leadership, response promise. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing, get_services, and check_fit, which cover different domains, though the description never names those alternatives.

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 only implied by the enumerated contents — an agent can infer it should call this for company background questions — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to sibling tools such as get_service_areas or check_fit.

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