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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the trust score is only provided 'when the Trust service is reachable,' indicating conditional availability. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The conditional nature is helpful, but other behavioral aspects remain implicit.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and listing specific return elements. No unnecessary words; each phrase contributes. The conditional trust service note is efficiently integrated.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main points: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It mentions the conditional trust score. However, it does not explicitly state what it does not do (e.g., does not provide historical changes, which might be expected from the 'changes' sibling). This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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% (the domain property has a description: 'Company domain.'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description references the domain parameter but adds no additional semantic detail (e.g., format, examples, constraints). It provides minimal extra value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying what Revnuvo can substantiate about a company domain, listing specific outputs (observation history, count, state hash, trust score). The verb 'Verify' and the resource 'company domain' are explicit, and the focus on evidence-backed verification distinguishes it from sibling tools like revnuvo_get_company (retrieval) or revnuvo_get_company_state (specific state).

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use it for diligence flows that need evidence-backed company verification rather than assumptions.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g., 'for raw company data use revnuvo_get_company'). It gives a clear context without explicit exclusions.

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