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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it returns the same records as check_business and explicitly provides 'no verdict, rating or recommendation.' That negative-capability statement is genuinely useful for setting agent expectations about the output.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the alias relationship is front-loaded and the output disclaimer follows. Nothing redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description correctly avoids that. It covers the alias role and the no-verdict caveat; the only minor gap is not stating preference between this alias and check_business.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (name, usdot, mc, query, city, state) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the internal kind=movers mapping, so baseline 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?

States a specific role (compatibility alias for check_business with kind=movers) and the resource it returns (dated mover records), and names the sibling tool it maps onto. An agent can immediately tell what this tool is and how it differs from check_business.

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?

Calling it a 'compatibility alias' implies it exists for legacy callers and that check_business is the canonical path, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer one over the other. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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