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

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: the Business tier requirement, the fact that the user is not currently signed in, and that the server will return an authentication challenge. Also instructs the agent not to fabricate an answer, adding honesty guidance that aligns with readOnly and openWorld hints.

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, followed by the requirement, usage guidance, and a caution about fabrication. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers all necessary context: what data is returned, the authentication prerequisite, how the server behaves when not authenticated, and when to use it. No missing information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explains the meaning of the tool's scope ('YOUR business locations') without needing to describe parameters, achieving the baseline expected for a no-parameter tool.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'Scan coverage for YOUR business locations' with specific data fields (scan counts, suspicious detections, last scan). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the user's own business locations, not general statistics.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this tool anyway if the user is asking for their own business, reseller, or licensed data'. Also explains the authentication requirement and the expected server response, making it clear when and how to invoke the tool.

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