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

The annotations only carry hint flags, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses no model spend, no external publication, no messages sent, and a revision-preservation (concurrency) constraint, which is real value beyond the annotations. It does not say what happens on a stale revision or to an existing draft, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by constraints; there is no filler. Slightly dense given the compound first sentence, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety/scope profile is well covered for a write tool. What is missing is failure behavior for a mismatched revision and whether an existing draft is overwritten, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 40% (only revision and businessId are documented; the 11 nested facts fields and businessType are not), so the description is expected to compensate. It clarifies that `facts` must be user-confirmed and not invented, which is meaningful, but it does not explain the nested fact fields or the businessType enum choices.

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+resource: 'Generate and save reviewable business schema, website copy and a business-profile description.' This clearly separates it from the read-side get_website_fixes and the verify_website_fixes siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'Inspect first' implies a sequencing prerequisite (presumably inspect_business_website) and 'facts the user explicitly confirms' sets an input precondition. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternative routing, so usage is only implied.

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