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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states that gated sources return a named gate rather than failing silently, that filters a source cannot honor exactly are refused with the reason, and that counts are exact and limits tier-capped. It omits pagination behavior and response shape, but the failure-mode disclosure is genuinely useful beyond what any structured field provides.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a run-on single paragraph in which a source catalog, an ingestion date, gating status, and per-state caveats are all compressed together. The information earns its place, but bullet points or ordering by task (pick a source, then filter) would be far easier to act on.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers source identity, defaults, gating, and refusal semantics well enough to call it correctly. Missing pieces such as result record contents and pagination are minor given the 100%-covered schema and the limit parameter documentation.

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%, so per-parameter documentation is already handled by the schema, including the PA/NY county scoping and the CT entity_type refusal. The description's only added semantic layer is the cross-source refusal rule, which largely restates the entity_type schema note, so the baseline 3 stands.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: searching normalized public business-register and new-filing records, with the actual sources enumerated. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like licenses_search or permits_search, but the resource domain is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Provides strong source-selection context (which registries are PROMOTED, which are GATED and return a named gate, Arizona is planned), which implicitly guides usage. However it never states when to choose this over a sibling such as licenses_search or property_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the gating note.

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