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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral aspects: name/address matching, match tiers and confidence disclosed, public records nature, and pricing. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, sources, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the key use. Slightly verbose but well-structured for the information density.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 simple params and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what datasets are covered, matching methodology, confidence disclosure, and legal disclaimers. An agent can confidently select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about name normalization (legal suffixes normalized away, case insensitive) and state being a two-letter code, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's brief examples.

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 aggregates federal records across multiple datasets for a company, using name and state. It distinguishes itself from per-dataset sibling tools by being a 'flagship employer dossier' that provides a unified view.

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 explicitly says what the tool does (employer dossier by name+state), lists included data sources, and clarifies it is not a consumer report (no FCRA use). This helps an agent understand when to use it versus specialized tools like oflc_sponsor_dossier or osha inspections.

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