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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description goes further by spelling out both invocation behaviours: no argument returns every published certification plus per-certification site counts, and a certification argument lists matching sites with a publishedAs field as evidence. It also discloses name normalisation, which is a real behavioural trait an agent could otherwise be surprised by.

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 lead sentence front-loads the concrete answer the tool provides, and each of the four sentences carries distinct information (return shape, filtered return shape, normalisation, routing to the sibling). It is dense but nothing is padding; a slightly tighter phrasing of the normalisation sentence would be the only trim.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for both the unfiltered and filtered cases. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, including the multi-value 'and'/'or' semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why matching works on normalised names (the website writes some standards several ways), which tells the agent that loose/variant certification strings will still match.

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 question the tool answers ('which NetActuate locations are SOC 2 / HIPAA / PCI-DSS / ISO 27001 certified') across a defined scope (the whole footprint). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_data_centers' certification filter, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

It gives both the when ('Use it for regulated-workload placement') and the alternative with its selecting condition ('to combine a certification with a region or country, use list_data_centers' certification filter instead'). No prerequisite or exclusion 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.