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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the content of the response, including the three-state capability model and the 'what agents may and may not do' policy scope, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the tool's subject and enumerating what it covers. Slightly list-like phrasing ('What VoiceDesk AI does: ...') but no wasted text.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description's job is to tell the agent what it will learn, and it does so across four topical areas. A brief note on when to prefer the more specific siblings (pricing, compatibility) would make it fully complete.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to compensate for on this dimension.

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 specifies the resource and enumerates the information returned: capabilities with availability states, supported industries, onboarding process, and agent permission boundaries. That is far more specific than the title alone. It doesn't contrast itself against siblings like get_pricing or check_compatibility, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent is left to infer this is the general orientation/overview tool to call before the more specific siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or statement that pricing questions should route to get_pricing or compatibility questions to check_compatibility.

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