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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: entries are filed by proven parties, include counterparty replies, and the tool provides only dated facts without ranking or verdict. This explains the nature of results and the meaning of empty responses.

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 concise, with each sentence adding value. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear, direct language without unnecessary words.

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 check tool with one parameter, the description covers the input, expected output (dated facts, no score), and special case (empty result meaning). No output schema is needed given the clear explanation.

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 a single parameter 'subject' described. The description mentions the same kinds of values (seller, resource, address) but adds no additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: to ask about a dated complaint before paying. It specifies the subject (seller, resource, or address) and the action (ask whether published). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like complaint_bureau or file_complaint, though the purpose is specific enough.

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 advises using the tool before paying and interprets the empty answer as not evidence of reliability. It provides context on when to use but does not list alternatives or explicitly state when not to use.

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