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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the available_details pattern—telling the caller to inspect what data exists before escalating—and discloses the summary-level return shape. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose and return fields front-loaded and the follow-up instruction in the second sentence. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the key return fields and explains the available_details marker and the get_business hand-off. It does not detail score semantics or pagination behavior, but the schema covers the parameters and the workflow is complete enough for an agent to act.

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%, with every parameter described (query, category, country, lat/lon, pagination, min_confidence). The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Search for local businesses') and lists the return fields. It also names get_business as the full-details follow-up, which differentiates this tool's role as the search/summary entry point from the detail-retrieval sibling.

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 gives an explicit workflow: search, check available_details, then call get_business for full details. This provides clear context for the primary alternative, though it does not mention other sibling tools like list_categories or suggest.

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