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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral outputs (confidence score, ambiguity flag, ranked alternatives) and the decision rule for low confidence. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, but the outputs and confidence-based behavior are well covered.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the core action and output, the second gives the use case, the third provides alternative handling and a rule. Each sentence earns its place, front-loading the main action and keeping the description compact.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return elements (confidence score, ambiguity flag, ranked alternatives) and how to act on them. It also mentions optional corroborating parameters via the schema, making the tool understandable and actionable for an agent without requiring additional context.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all three parameters ('Business name as you have it, however messy', 'City, used as a corroborating signal', 'Two-letter state code to narrow the search'). The description reinforces 'messy or partial' acceptance but does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: resolving messy business names to a single canonical government record. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and distinct resource ('business name to canonical government record'), and distinguishes from sibling private_search by stating a preference for identification over browsing.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'when you have a company name from a document, email or user message and need to identify the actual registered entity.' It also names the alternative (private_search) and specifies when to use this tool instead. The confidence threshold behavior (show alternatives below 0.6) adds operational guidance.

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