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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing substantive limits an agent would otherwise have to fetch to learn: the standard is not ISO-accredited and no certificates are issued. It still doesn't say whether the content is static/cacheable or how large the payload is.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the subject and version before the content enumeration. The long itemised tail is justified because it tells the agent what it will receive without an output schema, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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, the description must carry the return-content burden, and it does so exhaustively: levels, methods, prices, turnaround, validity, evidence, verdicts, independence rules, limits and result URLs. An agent knows precisely what it gets before calling.

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% and the single locale enum is fully documented in the schema (en default, zh Simplified Chinese). The description adds nothing about the locale parameter, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (Returns) and a specific resource (the CCB Verification Standard v2.0), then defines exactly what that artifact contains. No sibling tool covers the verification standard, so the scope is unambiguous against the surrounding catalogue.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the rules behind a CCB check, but the description never states when to reach for it, when not to, or how it relates to neighbouring checks like check_anti_dumping or find_uk_compliance. Minimum viable guidance for a documentation-lookup tool.

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