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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by describing the standard return fields, the quote_request_url, and the paid-plan conditions under which phone, website, address, hours, photos, coordinates, and the description are included. It does not explicitly discuss side-effect status or auth, but 'Find businesses' implies a read-only lookup and the response shape is thoroughly disclosed.

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 purpose, and every subsequent sentence earns its place: one explains standard return fields, another explains paid-plan conditional fields, and neither repeats schema content or adds filler. It is detailed but appropriately sized.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description fully specifies what a result contains and the conditions that alter that result shape, which is the main contextual information an agent needs beyond the two documented parameters. For a read-oriented search tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 service_type as 'Exact service offered (matched against the services list)' and location as 'Optional city or state to filter by'. The description reinforces these meanings with the drain-cleaning example and the word 'exact', but it does not add substantive new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find businesses that list a specific service') and distinguishes this tool from category-based search with a concrete example ('Drain cleaning' rather than 'plumbing'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from siblings such as search_by_city and search_businesses.

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 first sentence gives a clear usage condition: use this tool when you know the exact service rather than the category. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is concrete and actionable, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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