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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile; the description adds genuinely new behavior: ranking by word match plus completeness of confirmed facts, an explicit no-paid-placement guarantee, free with no account, prices quoted exactly as the business confirmed them, and the confirmation/domain-proof gating of the index. That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information (scope, multilingual queries, returned fields, follow-up server, ranking, free access). It is a dense single block with some restatement of the confirmation/domain fact, which costs it a point.

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 an output schema, five well-documented parameters, and full annotation coverage, the description still supplies everything an agent needs: what comes back per result, how ordering works, and where to go for the rest. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description lifts it slightly by clarifying that the query accepts a business type, a service wanted, or a place, in English, Russian, Portuguese or Spanish, and that city/country/language are optional narrowing filters. It does not add format detail the schema lacks, so it stays below maximum.

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 and resource (find businesses) and pins the scope precisely: businesses whose owners confirmed their own facts at INITE, matched by what they do and where. It also draws the boundary against the Atlas/AI-tool directory, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling surface without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "use it, not this, for which AI tool or app to use," naming match_tools and atlas_lookup as the alternatives. It also states when the answer is insufficient (hours, full service list, Q&A) and points to the company facts MCP/A2A server for those follow-ups.

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