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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, is a check/read-type operation, and returns whether the business is named in AI answers. However, it does not clarify data sources, whether the response is a simple yes/no, or any limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two crisp sentences plus a one-word 'FREE' flag. The core function is front-loaded, and the workflow-context sentence earns its place by guiding when to use the tool.

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?

For a simple three-parameter lookup with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, cost, and workflow context. It could mention the exact AI source or answer format, but nothing blocks an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the framing of 'money category' and 'place' which maps naturally to category and location, but it provides no additional syntax, formatting, or relationship details beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Check whether'), a clear object (a business being named in AI answers), and the two key filters (money category, place). It also distinguishes its role by calling it the 'top-of-funnel' diagnostic step, separating it from the engagement-focused sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: this is the top-of-funnel tool agents use to diagnose a client. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the intended placement in the process is unmistakable.

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