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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it reveals that core fields are always present while phone, website, address, hours, photos, coordinates, and descriptions are gated by paid plans. It clearly conveys read-only search semantics and output availability, though it doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or result ordering.

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 action and followed by a compact but valuable enumeration of result fields and plan-based restrictions. Dense with useful information and no filler, though the field list makes it slightly heavier than a minimal description.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully explains what fields will appear and how plan tiers affect completeness. However, it is missing guidance on sibling-tool routing and on behavior when no optional filters are supplied, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent making a first call.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description loosely maps 'name, category, or location' to query, category, city, and state, but it doesn't add parameter-level syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('local business profiles on Bezal'), and names the search dimensions: name, category, or location. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_by_city, search_by_service, or search_providers.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_city or search_by_service, and no exclusion criteria are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving tool selection among similar search siblings to inference.

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