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

No annotations are present to provide technical behavior (e.g., rate limits, safety). The description remains focused on the tool's conceptual purpose and data grouping rather than technical behavioral traits, making a middle score appropriate.

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 definition is highly concise. The first sentence establishes the action, and the second sentence adds essential business value and context, maximizing information density without verbosity.

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 description is highly complete regarding *what* the tool does and *why* it is useful. While it does not specify low-level execution details like pagination or return structure, it provides all necessary information for the agent to select the correct tool based on the problem scope.

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%, so the baseline is high. The description enhances this by providing semantic value—explaining that the FRN acts as a 'common FCC registration' anchor for multiple related records like OCNs and RMDs.

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 defines the function (List carrier profiles) and the primary input resource (FCC Registration Number/FRN). This is specific and avoids ambiguity, especially when compared to other search sibling 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?

It provides clear usage intent: 'Use to group related OCNs, carrier names, and RMD records under a common FCC registration.' This tells the agent precisely what business problem this tool solves, guiding its selection effectively.

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