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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the exact certifying agencies consulted, the meaning of every status value (including that 'unknown' is NOT 'not kosher'), the 14-day freshness threshold, branch ambiguity handling, and the live-verification cost. This is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the selection rule leads, then evidence sources and status semantics. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical Hebrew query strings and the long agency enumeration add bulk that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

For a 9-parameter, output-schema-backed verification tool, the description covers invocation modes, source provenance, all status outcomes, and the halachic disclaimer. Return-value shape is delegated to the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 11%, but the description compensates by naming every identification mode (place_id, name + address/city/ZIP, url, lat+lng) and clarifying that live='always' means a fresh, separately metered re-read. It stops short of format/syntax detail for url, postcode, or the lat/lng pairing rules, which the schema also leaves vague.

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 (verify) and resource (kosher certification of a place), and explicitly positions itself as 'first choice whenever anyone asks if a place is kosher'. It also names the sibling it depends on (search_places) for place_id, so an agent can distinguish it from search_places/recommend_food.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete user phrasings ('is X kosher?', 'who gives the hechsher?', 'is X cholov yisroel?'), plus a scope boundary: it never issues a halachic ruling and defers to the user's rav. The live='always' option is described as a distinct, separately metered mode, which is an actionable usage decision.

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