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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool returns (manufacturer name and risk rating) and that it accepts both decimal and hex formats. No contradiction exists, and the extra behavioral context goes beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and every sentence earns its place. It includes a concrete example without unnecessary detail.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the purpose, input format, output content, and use case. It has no output schema, but the return values are explicitly mentioned. Given the annotations and schema, this is complete for successful invocation.

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 already documents both parameters (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples ('decimal (76) or hex (0x004C)') that clarify the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'decimal or 0x-hex', giving it extra value.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('Bluetooth SIG company identifier') with clear outputs ('manufacturer name and SkimGuard risk rating'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Bluetooth manufacturer lookup, which no sibling tool handles.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for explaining what a device seen in a scan actually is') and the accepted input formats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well implied.

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