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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, return format, or operational impact. Saying 'legacy alias' indicates compatibility but not actual behavior, leaving the agent without necessary safety or execution context.

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 text is very short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It omits essential details about the tool's purpose and parameters, making it insufficient for correct use.

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?

Given four undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is far from complete. It only provides a compatibility pointer, which is inadequate for an agent to invoke 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?

All four parameters (limit, query, category, location) have zero schema descriptions, and the description does not mention or explain any of them. The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or usage, making correct invocation difficult.

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 only identifies the tool as a legacy alias for search_businesses but does not state what the tool actually does. The function is entirely dependent on the sibling tool's description, so the purpose is not clearly communicated.

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 explicitly advises preferring search_businesses for new clients, which clearly indicates when not to use this tool and implies legacy use cases. This provides actionable guidance beyond just naming an alternative.

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