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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: omitting the location lists every market with a dedicated page, and the result distinguishes in-person vs remote service. Exact response fields are unspecified, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire definition with no waste: the core meaning comes first, usage triggers follow immediately, and the optional-parameter behavior closes it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the special omission behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't sketch the return shape, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the location parameter already has clear examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that omitting the parameter is valid and returns all markets, which goes beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up whether Upforge works with businesses in a given city or region', and clarifies that it also indicates in-person vs remote availability. This makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_services or get_company_overview, which are not geographically scoped.

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?

The description gives concrete natural-language triggers ('are they in my area', 'do they work with companies in ___', 'are they local to me') and explains the no-argument behavior. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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