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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, but the description adds the non-obvious core behavior: it returns a framework, not a completed audit, reads no listing, and the calling model is expected to run the checks itself. That is exactly the kind of contract an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 most important caveat — that this is a framework, not an audit — is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact domain enumeration and three tightly written example invocations. No sentence is filler.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the one behavioral fact an agent must know (it produces a checklist rather than reading listings). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only lightly reinforces this by implying the category narrows which map-pack searches matter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: it 'returns a research framework... a scored checklist' covering named domains (map-pack factors, listing consistency, category selection, site fundamentals). The framing 'not the finished audit' sharply defines what the tool is. It does not name or contrast any specific sibling tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 example invocations clearly map real query shapes to this tool, and the line 'This tool reads no listing; the calling model runs the checks with its own web search' tells the agent when this is the right call versus actually fetching data. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. business_teardown, competitor_landscape) or states an explicit exclusion, so routing against siblings 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.