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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the source is public records, not a consumer report (no FCRA use), mentions match tiers and confidence, and notes pricing ($0.25/call). This gives good transparency about the tool's nature and constraints.

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 long, each adding value: the first explains the tool's action and output sections, the second adds disclaimers and pricing. While a touch verbose, it remains efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the output sections (OFLC, WHD, OSHA, EPA, FMCSA, LEIE/SAM) and mentions confidence/vintages. It provides a solid high-level overview for an agent to decide whether to use this tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful context: the entityId is a UUID from specific search endpoints, and an example format is provided. This helps the agent understand where the value comes from and its required format 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 it returns a 'business360 dossier' for an exact employer entity, specifying it compiles canonical identity and per-source sections from multiple federal databases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like firmstanding_company_search (search) and firmstanding_business360_lookup (likely a different lookup).

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 tells the agent to use the entity UUID obtained from specific endpoints (/v1/companies/search or /v1/business360/lookup) and implies it is for a known entity. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare with siblings, the context of sibling tools (e.g., domain-specific tools for EPA, FAA) provides implicit guidance.

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