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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it states exactly what will be returned (published class, disclosure, recommendation basis, commercial-neutrality statement, citation) and explicitly says private weighting is not exposed. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the output boundary.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the trigger, then compactly enumerates the returned components and the privacy boundary. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the trigger, the returned content, and the non-exposure of private weighting. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, business_id, is already documented as the Loppee business id of a published Trust Card. The description adds the contextual precondition that the business must be known and published, but does not add new format or semantic details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose: explaining why a known published business is or is not recommendable on Loppee, and lists what it returns. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like lookup_business or get_trust_card, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: "Use this when the user asks why a known published business is or is not recommendable." It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or direct agents to alternatives, but the trigger condition is specific enough to route correctly in most cases.

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