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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the query costs 5 points and the hard requirement that location drive the search scope. It does not contradict the annotations, though it never explains why a search is flagged non-read-only, which would have resolved that ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the hard constraint, then the return/cost facts. No filler and nothing buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully highlights the cid handoff to get_place and the 5-point cost. The only gap is that it gives no sense of result quality or failure modes (e.g. what happens with an unknown location), which for an open-world external search would be worth one clause.

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%, so query, location, language and limit are already documented with defaults and ranges. The description reinforces that location is required and is a city or country name, which largely restates the schema field text rather than adding syntax or format rules. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Search businesses") and broadens it with concrete examples (restaurants, salons, clinics, hotels) so the agent knows it is a general place lookup, not a business-type-specific tool. It also positions itself in the workflow by naming the downstream sibling get_place, which no other sibling tool claims.

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?

Gives clear usage context: location is REQUIRED and determines which country is searched, and results carry a cid to hand to get_place. That is a real routing hint. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g. "use call_business if you already have a cid"), so it stops short of 5.

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