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

Without annotations (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), the description carries the burden. It notably cautions that the result 'indicates what the filing says, not legal ownership or control' — a useful caveat clarifying that outputs are filing-based, not authoritative legal facts. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or result characteristics beyond the caveat, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 a tight three-sentence block: what it does, why it matters, and a disambiguation caveat. Every sentence earns its place — no filler, no redundancy with the schema. The interpretive framing is front-loaded and the caveat is a valuable closing note.

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 and no annotations, the description carries significant weight. It covers purpose, use cases, and the key interpretive caveat (filing-based, not legal ownership). For a filter-type tool with 6 well-documented parameters, this is reasonably complete; the main gap is not describing expected return structure or size, but the caveat about data meaning compensates well.

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% with all 6 parameters documented inline, so baseline is 3. The description meaningfully contextualizes the tool's core filter (officer==agent) which implicitly explains why city/state/type/min_age filters matter for narrowing owner-operated business searches. It adds interpretive value by connecting min_age to the 'no management layer' scenario, slightly elevating above baseline.

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 the specific function: finding businesses where an officer is also the registered agent, with the same person in both roles. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by defining the unique filter criteria (officer==agent) that no sibling tool name suggests.

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 provides clear use cases ('acquisition target lists', 'judge whether a supplier depends on one person'), which tells the agent when to reach for it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'succession and acquisition signal' framing gives strong contextual guidance for when this tool's specific filter is wanted vs. generic browsing/search siblings.

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