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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says it is a legacy alias, implying it behaves like search_businesses, but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, or other behaviors. The agent cannot infer safety or impact from the description alone.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the key fact (legacy alias) and the preference for the sibling. It is concise and front-loaded, though minimal.

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?

As an alias, the agent would need to understand what search_businesses does to use this tool effectively, but the description does not point to it for details. It lacks information on parameters, behavior, or return values, making it incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema coverage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no meaning for limit, query, category, or location, leaving the agent entirely dependent on the schema with no additional context.

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 it is a legacy alias for search_businesses, which clearly identifies it as a search tool for businesses, but it does not describe the resource or behavior directly. It relies on the referenced tool to convey purpose, which is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 explicitly advises preferring search_businesses for new clients, which gives a clear direction for tool selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this alias (e.g., for legacy clients), though it is implied.

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