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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ordering ('newest first') and the explicit return fields (public key, links to record and catalogue). This is valuable for the agent's expectations.

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, no filler, with the main purpose and key details front-loaded. It earns its place by defining scope, ordering, and return content without redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return content (public key, links) and ordering. The agent can infer the response structure from the description, and the single 'limit' parameter is self-explanatory. Nothing missing for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter, 'limit', is fully covered by the schema with a description ('How many to return, newest first. Defaults to 50.'). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (return businesses), the specific resource (verified, domain-bound identity on Orbylon), and the ordering (newest first). It also highlights key output details (public key and links), which helps distinguish it from generic list tools. This is distinct from siblings like list_business_offerings or lookup_business, which serve different purposes.

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 provides a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this to find a business you can check cryptographically rather than one you have to take on trust.' This gives context for selection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. That is a minor gap, but the guidance is still clear enough.

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