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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating that unknown or unavailable ids are reported as unresolved rather than fabricated, which is a meaningful correctness guarantee an agent needs to know.

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 with every part earning its place. The use case and constraint are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the critical edge-case behavior without padding.

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?

Given a single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and world assumptions, the description provides the remaining context an agent needs: input constraints, expected output substance, and the fallback behavior for unresolved ids. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter, including min and max array length and de-duplication behavior, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description reinforces the 'two to twenty' bound and adds the 'known published' requirement, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('compare'), a specific resource ('two to twenty known published Loppee business ids'), and the exact output contents ('exact class, disclosure, review context, and citation'). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like lookup_business or get_trust_card.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Use this when the user wants a side-by-side comparison...') and adds the constraint that input must be known published ids. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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