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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read-oriented retrieval tool and the description usefully discloses that confirmed/inferred status, sources, and checked dates are preserved, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, pagination, or result shape.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise and puts the core resource first, though the semicolon clause could be slightly more structured for scanning.

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 three-parameter retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not fully explain the result structure or how it relates to the similar Victorian sibling tool.

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 schema already documents lang, query, and topic. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, 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 gives a clear verb and resource: find curated Australian small business AI rules and guidance. It adds relevant scope around confirmed versus inferred status, sources, and checked dates, making the tool distinguishable in general, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling vic_ai_help_for_small_business.

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 does not state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose instead. Given the close sibling vic_ai_help_for_small_business, this leaves important routing guidance to inference.

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