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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's output: definitions, methods, and limitations. It is a simple read-only tool with no side effects or auth requirements mentioned, but the description is transparent enough for the task.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main output, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content (definitions, methods, limitations) and usage recommendation. It is complete for a simple 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?

The tool has no parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info beyond what the schema provides, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool returns definitions of 5 judgment categories and 4 subcategories of 'not_found', along with investigation methods and limitations. It distinguishes from the sibling tool by recommending reading this before using research_vendor_certifications.

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 explicitly recommends reading this before interpreting results from research_vendor_certifications, providing clear context for use. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the recommendation is strong and informative.

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