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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds substantive behavior: answer taxonomy yes/no/location_dependent/ask_team, the rule to never assume yes, per-location answers, and source-page citations.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and result states. The description is dense but every sentence adds useful routing or behavioral information.

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?

The output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety characteristics, while the description adds the important answer semantics and citation behavior. The remaining gap is the unexplained optional conversation_id parameter.

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 carry parameter meaning. It gives useful capability examples and implies location_id via 'overall or at one location,' but it does not explain conversation_id or clarify expected formats.

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: 'Checks one capability against CANOPY's published facts,' with scope 'overall or at one location.' The examples and answer states make it clearly distinguishable from generic sales or location lookup tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context with capability examples and explains that unpublished facts return ask_team rather than assuming yes. 'No contact details needed' helps distinguish it from sales contact, but it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools such as ask_sales_question.

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