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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about the return content (licensed accountants, credentials, covered jurisdictions) and notes the explicit user-request requirement for the alternative path. This is adequate beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, which is minor given the simplicity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and an explicit alternative. Every word contributes value—no filler or repetition of what annotations already provide. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing; the output schema handles return structure, and the description provides the necessary decision context.

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 schema description for the jurisdiction parameter is complete (100% coverage), so the parameter is already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'for this jurisdiction,' which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight and the description does not contradict or enhance it.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('named licensed accountants who have signed off on OpenAccountants jurisdictions') along with the data included (credentials, covered jurisdictions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the review flow via share_with_openaccountants, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the user asks who verified a skill or wants to see the verifier network') and also gives a when-not-to-use condition, routing review requests to share_with_openaccountants with request_review: true. This directly addresses alternatives and exclusions, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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