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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: which fields are always returned and that phone, website, address, hours, photos and coordinates are gated behind a paid plan, with the description text gated behind a higher plan. This warns the agent that results are legitimately sparse for non-paying providers rather than broken.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the field list, and every clause conveys real information. The second sentence is dense and long, but none of it is filler given the plan-gating detail.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so by enumerating the standard fields and the conditionally available ones. For a one-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret partial results.

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% with a single business_ids array already carrying minItems=1, maxItems=5 and UUID format. The description reinforces the maximum of 5 and clarifies these are business identifiers, adding a small amount of meaning beyond the schema but no new format or ordering guidance.

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 (compare) plus the resource (businesses) and the batch scope ('up to 5 businesses side by side'), which implicitly separates it from the single-record get_business sibling. It never names an alternative tool outright, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 by the word 'compare' – the description never says when to prefer this over repeated get_business calls, nor any exclusion such as 'do not use for a single business'. No prerequisites or error conditions are given.

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