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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does it well: it discloses the exact result field set and, importantly, that phone/website/address/hours/photos/coordinates and the description are gated by paid plan tier — a non-obvious data-availability constraint an agent must know before trusting results. It does not cover result ordering, empty-result behavior, or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then return-shape details. The long second sentence is dense but every clause carries real information about tier-gated fields; nothing is filler.

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 does the necessary work of enumerating returned fields and flagging tier-dependent availability. Remaining gaps are minor: sorting, result count behavior against the limit cap, and what an empty result looks like.

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% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces that city is the scoping input and category is an optional filter but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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) plus the scope that separates it from the generic search_businesses and search_by_service siblings: a specific city, with an optional category filter. An agent can route to it 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?

Usage is implied by the city scoping and the optional category filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when search_businesses or search_by_service would be preferable, and no stated prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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