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

Annotations already mark this as a read-only, closed-world search, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it lists returned fields and explains that phone, website, address, hours, photos and coordinates are only available for paid-plan providers. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious data-availability constraint an agent needs before selecting the tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the exact-service distinction. Every sentence earns its place by adding usage guidance or return-value constraints.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing core return fields and explaining plan-based field availability. Combined with the annotations and fully described parameters, it gives enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that service_type should be an exact service rather than a category and gives an example, but it does not add syntax or matching details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific action and resource: finding businesses that list a specific service. It immediately distinguishes this from category-based lookup with a concrete example, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool returns.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: when you know the exact service rather than the category. The contrast with category lookup is useful, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as list_categories or search_businesses, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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