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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description layers on real behavioral detail beyond that: ten-result page size, the has_more/total_pages contract, the caveat that total_pages is only present when the count is exact, and the failure mode that a page past the end returns a not-found error rather than an empty page.

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 purpose and the not-the-same-as-ratings caveat are front-loaded, and every clause is functional. The pagination clause is dense (two parentheticals and a backtick reference) but none of it is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still explains the pagination contract and terminal error. Combined with annotations and the fully described 9-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds value beyond the schema: it explains the consequence of omitting all filters (newest-first browse feed), pins page size to ten results, and frames filters as a combined predicate set rather than a single required query.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search BBB Scam Tracker consumer-reported scam incident records') and enumerates the filter axes (query, category, states, dates, dollar loss). It also explicitly disambiguates from BBB business ratings, so an agent can separate it from bbb_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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the no-filter case ('Omit all filters to browse newest reports'), routes to two named siblings (bbb_scamtracker_detail for one report, bbb_scamtracker_state_stats for state aggregates) and to bbb_search for business search, and states the exact pagination loop condition ('request the next page only while `has_more` is true').

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