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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds beyond that: 'Credential-free public Better Business Bureau data' tells the agent no auth is needed, and 'when known' flags that scammer contact/location fields may be absent. It does not discuss failure modes for an unknown id, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then provenance/credential status, then id origin, then sibling routing – a sensible order. The field enumeration is a long noun phrase but every clause carries information; only the duplicated id sentence is mild redundancy.

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 present, the description needn't explain the return shape, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Provenance (BBB, credential-free) and the sibling link make it sufficient for a single-parameter lookup tool; only edge behavior (nonexistent id) is unaddressed.

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% and the single id parameter's schema description is essentially the same sentence repeated in the tool description. The description adds no new format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns one normalized BBB Scam Tracker consumer scam report') and enumerates the actual payload fields (description, dollars lost, locations, scammer contact, scam type, business name, date reported). This clearly separates it from bbb_scamtracker_search and bbb_scamtracker_state_stats without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use bbb_scamtracker_search to search...' and explains the id comes from a bbb-scamtracker-search result's id or url, which implies the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this (e.g., no bulk/list retrieval), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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