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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses status meanings, evidence source, price visibility, FCC lower-bound caveats, and the fact that confirm triggers supplier confirmation requests. It still leaves out latency, permissions, and fuller response 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with little wasted wording; the status list, caveat, and confirm behavior are presented efficiently. 'Honest status' is slightly promotional but does not meaningfully obscure the message.

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 five-parameter availability check with no annotations or output schema, it covers the critical statuses, data limitations, and confirm behavior. It is still thin on full response shape and on how category, service_ids, and phone affect the check.

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. The description reinforces the US business-address scope and explains confirm as a binding-answer request, but it adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify category, service_ids, or phone usage.

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 ('Check') and resource ('which suppliers can likely serve a US business address'), plus the status vocabulary and data source. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as quote.request, so it is clear but not fully sibling-routing.

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?

Explains an important in-tool usage pattern: FCC-only results are likely/unknown and confirm:true asks suppliers for a binding answer. It does not say when to use this instead of quote.request or other siblings, nor when not to use it.

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