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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value with the return content ('starting prices and whether they serve the zip'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing result limits, ranking, or pagination.

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, zero filler: the core purpose and examples come first, followed by the filters and the return summary. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the query intent and return fields well but leaves the accepts enum, the lat/lng vs zip vs location relationship, and result-size behavior unexplained. Minimum viable, with clear remaining gaps.

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 57%, so the description must compensate for some gaps. It clarifies the free-text q parameter with need-based examples ('smoothie', 'clogged sink') and names category, zip, location, and open-now, but says nothing about accepts (the enum) or how lat/lng interact with zip/location.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('businesses in the network') with concrete query examples ('plumber', 'clogged sink'), and the 'Returns summaries with starting prices' clause clarifies the output shape. It implicitly separates itself from the singular sibling get_business (bulk search vs single fetch) but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies the use case (searching by customer need with optional filters), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never routes the agent to or away from siblings like get_business, get_services, or check_service_area. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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