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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, but the description adds crucial context the annotations can't: it requires user approval, consumes one analysis credit, returns an approval link, and results appear asynchronously in GBPly and list_analysis_reports. It doesn't restate what 'destructive' destroys beyond the credit note, keeping it just shy of 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?

A single front-loaded sentence packed with purpose, example, cost, and return path. Every clause earns its place, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return explanation ('Returns an approval link') and the async result location, which is complete for a request-style tool. The only gap is the undocumented workspace_id required param.

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 0%, so the schema documents none of the three params. The description supplies example values for query ('dentist') and location ('Leeds'), which aids semantics for two params, but workspace_id is left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Ask the user to approve an Industry Analysis search') with a concrete example of query and location, so the agent can tell it apart from request_rank_scan and request_citation_scan. It also names the sibling where results surface (list_analysis_reports).

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 approval flow and credit cost imply when to call it, and the mention of list_analysis_reports gives a routing hint for viewing results. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like get_request_status or list_analysis_reports, leaving the agent to infer.

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