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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: each fact carries its source URL and check date, inconsistent figures are omitted, and prices are excluded. This tells the agent what data quality and coverage to expect, though it does not describe response shape beyond the output schema.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the return contract—facts plus source URL and check date—and then lists the covered categories and exclusions.

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, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the single optional parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds source provenance, omission rules, and price exclusion, leaving it nearly complete, though it could better clarify how it differs from overlapping sibling tools.

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 group parameter is already documented with an enum. The description indirectly maps to those groups by naming company facts, satisfaction, service commitments, credentials, and client results, but it does not add filtering semantics or explain default behavior when the optional parameter is omitted.

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 states it returns MEOM facts with source page URL and verification date, and enumerates the fact categories. It is specific about verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as meom-public-list-references, which may also contain client evidence.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's evidentiary nature: facts, URLs, and checked dates suggest it should be used for verified claims. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions relative to siblings, and no instruction on when to prefer list_references or list_experts instead.

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