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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses how the answer is produced (only from what the business published on Orbylon), that it never guesses, and the failure shape: answered: false plus the business's phone number. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and the alternatives arrive last, which is the right ordering. It is slightly dense—the parenthetical inventory of published data and the repeated mentions of sibling tools add length—but no sentence is filler.

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 only two simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description still explains the response semantics (answered: false and the fallback phone number) and the tool's limits. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the question must be a single plain question phrased in the customer's words, illustrated by examples that define scope. It does not elaborate on domain formatting, though "verified business" clarifies it identifies the business.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Ask one plain question about a verified business") and immediately grounds it with two concrete example questions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_business or list_business_offerings, which are named as different operations.

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 states exactly when this tool applies (plain factual questions about a business) and when it does not: businesses that don't answer here "point to list_business_offerings and lookup_business instead," and prices, bookings and orders are routed to list_business_offerings, place_order and request_quote. Alternatives and their selecting conditions are explicit.

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