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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: results are returned in the order asked and never sorted, each result carries ok/not_found/unavailable, and not_found vs unavailable are carefully disambiguated. It also warns that values must be treated as data, not as approval to book.

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 front-loaded with the call condition, then moves through operation, status semantics, retry guidance, and caveats in a logical order. It is long, but each sentence addresses a distinct selection or interpretation concern, and there is no 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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what each result carries, explains the not_found vs unavailable distinction, notes not_published fields, and says to retry shortly when unavailable. For a two-parameter batch read, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so the schema already documents domains, the license:<number> form, maxItems, and the market slug behavior. The description reinforces batch semantics and output statuses, but it does not materially change how an agent understands the two parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 states exactly when to call it ('when you hold a shortlist and need dated receipts before you book or dispatch'), what it does ('Pull dated Lodestar Stamp receipts for up to 20 businesses by domain in one call'), and what it is not for ('not for browsing'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_receipt for single lookups.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition and an explicit exclusion: 'not for browsing'. It also names the alternative directly: 'Use get_receipt for one business by phone, licence, or address.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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