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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Find' plus 'sources and checked dates' implies a read-only curated lookup and usefully signals provenance/freshness metadata. It does not state what happens with no matches, whether an empty query returns everything, or any pagination/result-size behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the trailing 'including eligibility, cost, sources and checked dates' earns its place because no output schema exists to convey returned fields. No filler.

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 and no annotations, the description does the important work of naming the returned fields, which is what an agent needs here. The remaining gap is behavioral: with zero required parameters it is unclear whether an empty call lists everything or returns nothing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in-schema (query substring semantics, lang enum with preserved source links), so the description need not compensate. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for two fully documented params.

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 (Find) and resource (curated AI training and assistance) with a clear geographic/audience scope (Victorian small businesses), and even enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from au_small_business_ai_rules and melbourne_ai_events by being a training/assistance directory rather than a rules or events source, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 use case is inferable from the scope (Victorian small businesses seeking AI training) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to the closely related au_small_business_ai_rules sibling for regulatory questions. The agent must deduce routing from the scope wording alone.

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