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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context about FTC consent orders (20-year restrictions, penalties, example of a real case), which helps the agent understand the nature and implications of the data. However, it does not describe tool-specific behaviors like output format or pagination, which would be useful for a lookup 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?

The description is front-loaded with the 'Use when' statement and packs a rich example and source reference into four sentences. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds useful context. The structure is logical, though a direct statement of the tool's function would improve conciseness.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides substantial context: usage scenarios, legal implications, an example, and a data source. It does not specify the return structure, but the example suggests the type of data available. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, company_name, with zero description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not explicitly define company_name or its format, though the example uses 'Tech Platform Corp' to imply it. Given the low schema coverage, more explicit parameter guidance would be needed to score higher.

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 identifies the resource as FTC enforcement history and the context of use, but never explicitly states the tool's action (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'returns'). The purpose is implied through the usage scenario and example rather than directly declared, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 explicitly lists specific scenarios ('antitrust exposure, consumer protection liability, data privacy enforcement history, or deceptive practices risk') and contexts ('acquisition, strategic partnership, or enterprise vendor selection'), making it clear when to use this tool. It also provides a concrete example that illustrates application, offering strong guidance versus alternatives.

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