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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-open-world, but the description adds real behavioral context: no pricing is quoted online, a specialist quotes on the call, and the response includes status, a talk-track summary, speeds, and call-request eligibility. Geographic limitation to Hinesville & Midway is useful and consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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 the core action, then layers scope, cost, and return contents in short sentences. Mostly earns its space, though the pricing/specialist sentence is slightly tangential to the check operation itself.

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 compensates by enumerating what comes back (status, summary, speeds, call eligibility) and explains the no-online-pricing policy. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 street, zip, and unit are already documented with formats and examples. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or constraints, 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 (check) and resource (fiber internet availability) plus the required input (street address). The added business context (Fast Fibre / Brightspeed network, Hinesville & Midway GA) makes the scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from the request_callback sibling.

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?

Conveys when this tool applies (free, no sign-up, checking a specific address) and implies the follow-up path via 'whether a call can be requested.' It stops short of explicitly naming request_callback as the alternative for booking a call, so it's clear context without full routing guidance.

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