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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It adds 'City-level matching' as a behavioral hint, but does not explain ordering, pagination, or whether the match is exact or fuzzy. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and optional filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with a detailed schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over the multiple sibling search tools, and does not clarify any limitations or special cases beyond 'city-level matching'.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra context by emphasizing city as the key filter and category as optional, but does not explain parameter relationships or the role of 'state'.

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 (search), the resource (businesses), and the scope (specific city), which distinguishes it from search_by_service. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast its scope with search_businesses, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_businesses or search_by_service. It only mentions an optional category filter, which is functional rather than contextual. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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