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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful transparency by explaining that some fields are only available for paid Bezal plans, and that quote_request_url is the public profile link. This goes beyond a simple 'searches businesses' statement and helps set expectations about result completeness.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence packs useful return-field information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return fields and conditional availability, which covers most of what an agent needs. It does not describe ordering, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling, but these are less critical for a simple search tool and the parameter schema is well-covered.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the notion of category filtering and maps to the category parameter, but it does not add new meaning for city, state, or limit beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action, resource, and scope: 'Search for businesses in a specific city, optionally filtered by category.' It also documents the fields returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like search_businesses or search_by_service, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

The description explains the tool's basic use case but offers no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as search_businesses, search_by_service, or search_providers, nor does it state exclusions like 'use search_by_service for service-based queries.' The agent is left to infer routing from the name.

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