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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Never submits anything,' discloses a conservative 'inconclusive' policy for client-rendered, bot-protected, or parked sites, and even quantifies uncertainty (~64% cannot be judged). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then lists return values and behavioral policy in the following two sentences. The 64% statistic and the rationale are slightly verbose but reinforce an important safety behavior, so they earn their place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the key return elements (verdict, forms with handler URLs, phone/email) and explains edge-case behavior. For a single-parameter tool with no siblings and no annotations, this provides a complete picture for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including type, pattern, and an example. The description adds context about what the URL represents but no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('business website URL'), and clearly states what the tool determines: how a human is meant to make contact and whether that path is reachable. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the outcome (verdict, forms, contact info), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly frames the input as a business website URL and explains what the tool does with it, giving an agent enough context to decide when to invoke it. There are no sibling tools or exclusions to mention, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is not a significant gap.

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