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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it specifies the return contents (filed plans, verified deals with promo codes and evidence, 24-month complaint counts, Google rating), states counts are 'as published; not scored or combined,' and imposes an output policy (no verdict, grade, or recommendation; rank/price are not quality measures). That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and the return payload before the policy and exclusion clauses, and the example queries earn their place by anchoring real user phrasing. It is dense and slightly overlong (the parenthetical examples and the anti-verdict policy could be tightened), but no sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it enumerates the plan/deal/complaint/rating payload, notes the 24-month complaint window, and flags the evidence attached to deals. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response.

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 parameter already documents partial matching and the ambiguous/unknown-name fallback, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces 'by name' and the single-marketer scope; it adds no matching syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific resource (one Georgia natural gas marketer) and enumerates exactly what it covers: reviews/Google rating, PSC complaints, plans and rates, contract terms, promo codes. It explicitly separates itself from compare_rates for multi-marketer comparison, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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 an explicit trigger ('when someone asks about one Georgia natural gas marketer by name'), concrete example queries, and a hard exclusion list: multi-marketer ranking (use compare_rates), electricity providers, Atlanta Gas Light, Atmos Energy, municipal systems, and non-Georgia companies. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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