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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description still adds substantial context beyond that: a per-batch read cap of 15 claim records that triggers a 'partial' marker, the unverified-claim caveat, the explicit warning that found=false is not proof of absence, and the payment/error-charging behavior. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does before caveats, and every sentence carries distinct information (scope, return shape, batch cap, epistemics, payment). It is dense and slightly cluttered with the pricing/error details, but nothing 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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return shape (found, claim count, claims with group, dates, sources) and flagging the partial-result case. Combined with the payment and error-charging notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single param is documented there, but the description adds real semantics: the 25-domain maximum is restated as an operational constraint, and 'Domains only; use lookup_victim for company names' clarifies the expected value format beyond the schema's 'e.g. acme.com'.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (vendor/supplier domains) with an explicit batch limit of 25, plus the purpose (ransomware leak-site claims for third-party-risk reviews). It distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_victim by declaring domains-only scope.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('use lookup_victim for company names') and gives the selecting condition (domain vs. company name). Also frames the intended use case, third-party-risk reviews, so an agent knows when this is the right tool.

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