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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the attribution-footer output requirement, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, radius default behavior, or how many dealers are returned.

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 purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is dominated by irrelevant boilerplate about campaign budgets, ROAS, CPA, revenue, and 'waste' labels that has nothing to do with an FFL dealer lookup. Roughly two of seven sentences earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least sketch what comes back (dealer names, addresses, license numbers) and how radius affects results; it does neither. The attribution and data-accuracy paragraphs are largely off-topic for this tool, leaving the agent under-informed for a two-parameter search.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the schema documents only zip_code; radius_miles has a default but no description. The description's phrase 'near a buyer ZIP code' loosely implies proximity but never explains the radius parameter, its units, or the default of 25 miles, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Find Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) dealers near a buyer ZIP code,' which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_gunbroker_order or search_gunbroker_items. However, the remaining ~70% of the text is unrelated marketing-analytics boilerplate, which dilutes an otherwise crisp purpose statement.

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?

'Useful for directing buyers to a local transfer dealer' gives an implied use case but no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites (e.g., does it need a connected Gunbroker account?), or alternatives. No sibling tool is named or excluded, so routing is left to inference.

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