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 explains parameter semantics (e.g., 'Empty = all', '0 = no filter') but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, nor does it describe return structure or any side effects. The parameter details add significant behavioral context, but broader behavioral traits are missing.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a bulleted list of arguments. The first two sentences are slightly promotional but add context. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters, with no wasted words in the argument list.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters) and the absence of schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary parameter semantics and purpose. The presence of an output schema compensates for the lack of return-value details. However, it doesn't address potential confusion with sibling search tools or mention any operational constraints, making it slightly incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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%, but the description provides exhaustive semantic meaning for all 9 parameters, including units, defaults, and valid values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, going beyond just naming the parameters to explain their exact filtering behavior.

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 clearly states the tool finds 'the best construction companies matching your criteria,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search_companies,' relying instead on the vague 'Smart lead generation' phrase. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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?

The description mentions use cases ('finding contractors, generating leads, or market research') but provides no guidance on when to avoid this tool or how it compares to alternatives like 'search_companies' or 'smart_match.' The usage context is implied but not explicit about exclusions or alternatives.

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