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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it covers only 11 states and returns specific filing attributes, which helps set expectations about scope and output without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only necessary details: result fields, state coverage, use case, and an example. The example is slightly redundant with the schema example but still valuable for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (secured party, filing date, filing number, status) which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It also covers geographic limitations and provides a working example, so all necessary invocation context is present.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description (state as two-letter code, _apiKey, searchQuery as legal name or sosId). The description's example call reinforces usage but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns Uniform Commercial Code filings for a business, listing the exact data fields (secured party, filing date, filing number, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cobalt_business_search and cobalt_tin_verify by naming a specific resource and purpose.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to detect existing liens on collateral for lending/underwriting, which gives a clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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