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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the business is not found. It provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is efficiently structured.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of 'paid weekly monitoring plan', or how the business identifier should be provided. Given the low complexity, more detail would be expected to make the tool safely callable.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'business' parameter, but it does not. It does not specify whether 'business' is an ID, name, or something else, nor its format or required values. The agent is left without any guidance on how to fill the parameter.

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 a specific verb 'Check' and a clear resource: whether a business is on the paid weekly monitoring plan. It clearly communicates the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cited_scan or cited_stats, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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