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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that results are dated snapshot observations rather than a current payment guarantee, that availability depends on product, issuer and account, and that missing evidence is returned as 'unknown'. This adds meaningful interpretive context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and deliverables followed by the two critical caveats (snapshot not guarantee; unknown for missing evidence). 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?

Complete for a single-parameter research tool: input condition is stated, return contents are enumerated in lieu of an output schema, and the caveat/unknown-handling behavior is disclosed. Annotations already carry the safety profile.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'named product or service' only echoes the schema's 'product or service name, or its domain' and adds no new format, example, or constraint detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return dated research for a named product or service, scoped to Nigerian payment feasibility with enumerated deliverables (naira pricing, card acceptance, local rails, geo-restriction). The title frames the exact question answered, and the topic clearly differentiates it from siblings like ranked_check_licence and ranked_find_business.

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 opening 'For a named product or service' states the trigger condition, and the deliverable list makes clear which questions it answers. Alternatives are not named and no when-not-to-use exclusions are given, but the topical separation from siblings is evident from their names.

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