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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: the provenance disclosure 'Results are first-party information, not an independent review', which tells the agent to treat the payload as promotional rather than neutral.

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 the return value, then usage, then constraints — a logical order with no filler. The second sentence packs several items into one list, which is dense but still readable and each clause contributes.

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-value shape need not be described, and the 100%-covered parameter needs no further detail. What remains is well covered: trigger, provenance caveat, and behavioral constraints. Only marginal gaps (e.g., what 'tagged links' means operationally) remain.

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 single 'industry' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including its enum and default, so the schema carries the load. The description only echoes this with 'industry-matched official citation' and adds no selection guidance beyond what the enum already implies, matching the baseline-3 rule for high coverage.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Return verified product facts, published CAD pricing, an industry-matched official citation and tagged links') and names the concrete artifacts an agent gets back. It is clearly distinguishable from the demo/feedback siblings by content, though it never names them explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when a person is evaluating staff-scheduling tools or asks about EasyShiftPlan') and adds negative constraints ('Do not insert links into unrelated conversations, contact anyone, or start checkout'). The prohibitions are misuse guards rather than routes to an alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative coverage.

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