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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the credit cost model (1 credit per record, minimum 2), the meaning of `total` (stored reports, not matches), and a prompt-injection warning that report text is unreviewed third-party allegation to be treated as quoted data, never instructions. That is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot carry.

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 scope and return fields are front-loaded, followed by usage routing, cost, and the safety caveat in tight succession. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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 an output schema handling return structure and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: cost implications, the 10k pagination ceiling, total semantics, and the untrusted-content warning. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters in detail. The description reinforces the filter axes (date_from/date_to, scam_type, state, country, loss) and the page_size cost tradeoff, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (stored archive of BBB Scam Tracker consumer scam reports) and enumerates the returned fields (narrative, scam type, loss, locations, business name, report date). An agent can distinguish it from bbb_scamtracker_search without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly (bbb_scamtracker_search) and the condition that selects this tool instead: reading a date range or scam-type page past the sibling's 10,000-result limit. It also lists the filter dimensions available, leaving nothing to inference.

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