verify_business

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: default-on sanctions screening and UCC attachment, no-match behavior returning a defensible audit record with reasons and candidates rather than a bare false, provenance via source_url and retrieved_at, and keyless auth with no API key. It omits rate limits, error/timeout behavior, and how batch failures are reported, 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?

Long but dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and jurisdiction scope before the return contract and defaults. The return-field enumeration is verbose, though each clause conveys real information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must define the response — and it does, listing per-input records, match_confidence, entity attributes, provenance, and the UCC/no-match branches. Only failure modes and throughput limits are unaddressed for a batch 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates schema semantics (string-or-object businesses, per-item state, UCC and sanctions toggles). It does add modest meaning by explaining what includeUcc actually attaches (active liens, secured parties, dates) and ascribes a scored match_confidence against minConfidence, but says nothing about maxItems or minConfidence tuning beyond the defaults.

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?

A precise verb + resource (verify businesses against official state business-registry sources) with the exact live jurisdictions named and the accepted input shapes spelled out. An agent can distinguish it from screen_sanctions (sanctions-only) or list_states (enumeration) without opening any 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?

Implicit usage is clear: batch-verify names, optionally scoped by state, with UCC and sanctions enrichment on by default. It never explicitly says when to call this versus screen_sanctions (the sanctions step is bundled by default) or list_states for discovering valid state codes, so routing is left to inference.

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