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

Annotations only declare the flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent); the description adds substantive behavior: answers/description are persisted briefly server-side behind the link, the consumer validates then submits on the town page, and contact details are never to be included. This explains why the operation is not read-only in a way the annotations cannot. It does not state permissions or the exact lifetime/scope of persistence.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the return values are front-loaded in the first sentence. The phrasing is choppy in places, notably the standalone fragment 'Never contact details', which takes effort to parse, but the overall length is proportional to the tool's complexity.

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 list the four returned items, plus privacy handling for the transient inputs. It leaves 'connected' and the exact composition of prefill_link undefined, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that answers and description feed prefill_link, that the description is held only briefly and never embedded in the link, and reinforces the 'no contact details' constraint. It also clarifies that 'city' may be a slug or a name as the consumer wrote it.

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 names the resource (a town's local providers) and enumerates what is returned: the town page, whether companies are connected, their names, and prefill_link. It positions itself against siblings by citing list_sites for the domain and get_service_info for option ids. It stops short of stating the core act in a single crisp verb+resource phrase, since it describes outputs rather than 'find providers for a town'.

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?

Uses of the optional inputs are explained ('Pass answers and a short description to get prefill_link filled in'), and the sibling references imply a workflow from list_sites to get_service_info to this tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus the alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite condition.

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