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

The description discloses the caller's APIFY_TOKEN usage, potential Apify usage consumption, 60-second wait ceiling, 1,000-row maximum, and the fact that government records are not modified. These operational side effects go well beyond the sparse annotations and give an agent a clear expectation of cost, latency, size, and non-mutation.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the intended use case and domain scope, and the second packs the key operational constraints. Every clause contributes information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Despite the operational constraints, the tool is complex (9 params, nested subject/evidence objects) and has no output schema. The description does not explain return shape, how to structure subject identifiers for each task, error/timeout behavior, or receipt/retention semantics, so an agent would still be guessing at invocation details.

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%, and the description does not compensate: it does not explain subject, evidence, retentionDays, transactionGate, previousReceiptHash, or screenRestrictedParties. It gestures at task categories, but an agent cannot derive the actual input semantics for most of the nine parameters from the description.

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 opens with a concrete routing verb and enumerates the supported evidence domains: U.S. property, India company/supplier, restricted-party, EPA facility, and China-facing intake. It distinguishes this gateway from the sibling data-source tools by framing the result as one minimized, receipt-bound packet and by noting it starts an Apify Actor.

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?

'Use for routing...' gives an explicit invocation context and lists supported intake categories. However, it never states when not to use the gateway or points to the specialized sibling tools (e.g., EPA, LEIE, property) as alternatives, so the routing decision between this aggregator and a direct data tool 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.