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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the jurisdictional scope (NSW + QLD, QLD via QBCC licence), the workflow ordering relative to record reads, and the trading-name fallback heuristic.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: scope/inputs first, then workflow placement, then the retry tip. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter search with no output schema: inputs, jurisdiction, sequencing, and a fallback strategy are all covered, and return values need not be explained. Missing only minor operational detail such as result limits or ambiguity handling when a query matches multiple builders.

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 carries the load and does it well: it enumerates the identifier types accepted by `query` (name, ABN, ACN, NSW/QBCC licence) and marks `postcode` as an optional narrowing filter. It omits expected identifier formats and the length bounds enforced by 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (NSW and Queensland builders) plus the exact identity keys accepted (name, ABN, ACN, NSW/QBCC licence number). Combined with the sibling names (get_builder_*), it is clear this is the lookup/entry-point tool that precedes record reads.

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?

"Resolve the legal entity before reading its record" and "Try the legal company name if a trading name misses" give real when-to-use and retry guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools to hand off to (get_builder_risk, get_builder_timeline, etc.), so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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