check_nap_consistency

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the mechanism (Bing public RSS search), the sources queried, and the possible verdict values ('consistent', 'inconsistent', 'insufficient data'). It omits failure modes, rate limits, and staleness of the public RSS data, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is terse and example-driven. The aside about mismatched numbers confusing Google and dialling customers is motivational filler that does not change how the tool is called.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema and no annotations, the definition covers inputs, sources, and verdict semantics well enough to invoke correctly. It leaves minor gaps around public-RSS availability and what happens when no directory match is found (beyond the 'insufficient data' verdict), which the output schema may cover.

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 compensate, and it does: every parameter is explained with an example, plus behavioral semantics the schema lacks (trade is inferred from the business name when omitted; website_url skips the search and strengthens the comparison). The defaults in the schema are also clarified in prose.

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 ('Check the phone number... NAP consistency') and names the two sides being compared (the business's own website vs thomsonlocal/TrustATrader). The mention that supplying website_url 'skips the search step' implicitly distinguishes it from the find_website sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives useful per-argument context (website_url skips the search, trade is guessed if omitted) but never states when to pick this tool over siblings like check_tap_to_call, check_form_platform, or run_full_audit. Usage is implied by the name rather than spelled out.

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