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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses the return shape (up to three matches with free-to-start scope, next step, and a contact link). It omits any note on latency, coverage limits, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 parameter meaning, then return behavior in three tight blocks. The example lists are useful but slightly padded; nothing is redundant enough to cut aggressively.

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 correctly explains what comes back, and with only two simple parameters it covers both. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior such as no-match responses is left undefined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: `problem` is defined as free-text need in English or Spanish with four concrete examples, and `business_type` is marked optional with domain examples. It does not say whether `business_type` sharpens or filters the matching, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 and resource: 'Recommend which Vira product fits a business need in Peru.' An agent can tell this is a needs-to-product recommendation tool, distinct from catalog/pricing siblings, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: call it when a user describes a business need in plain language. There is no explicit 'use this instead of vira_list_products or vira_pricing when...' routing guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary with siblings.

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