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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the summary fields returned and the crucial empty-result interpretation. It stops short of describing ordering, paging, or what happens when limit is reached.

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 tightly packed sentences: capability and return payload first, then routing and the empty-result caveat. No filler, and the most failure-prone detail (empty ≠ negative) lands at the end for emphasis.

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 needn't be re-explained, and the sibling routing plus empty-result semantics round it out. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit and grade-value conventions, minor for a read-only browse tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does cover three of four inputs (query as name, category, minimum grade). However 'limit' is never mentioned and the grade format/taxonomy is left unspecified, so an agent still has to guess acceptable min_grade values.

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 and resource (search the scored-brand table) plus the three filter axes and what each result contains (parent company, payout, grade, ratings). It also distinguishes itself from lookup_brand, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to browse; use lookup_brand for one known name,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It further warns that an empty result means no match rather than a negative finding, which prevents a real misreading of zero results.

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