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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it is static, free, representative, non-live, and never charges a wallet. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the key differentiator 'FREE STATIC SAMPLE' front-loaded. It packs relevant content details (fields, evidence, source URLs, confidence, missing-data disclosure, checked_at) without unnecessary fluff.

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 zero-parameter, read-only sample tool, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: the report's contents, the fact that it is not a live lookup, and the absence of charges. An output schema is absent, but the description compensates by enumerating the report components.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming no inputs are needed. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool, and the description's 'FREE STATIC SAMPLE' framing reinforces the no-configuration nature.

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 ('inspect') and a clearly defined resource ('a representative complete verification report'), explicitly listing the types of content included. It also distinguishes itself from live lookups, which sets it apart from sibling paid verification 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?

The phrase 'FREE STATIC SAMPLE' and the explicit statement 'This does not perform a live lookup' clearly imply the tool is for previewing/inspecting a sample report rather than obtaining live verification. It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for live lookups.

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