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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a listing of local businesses with specific fields such as verification status, rating, pricing, and page URLs, which helps an agent anticipate results.

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 entire meaning fits in one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The search scope, criteria, and return fields are all presented efficiently.

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 bounded search tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states what is searched, what dimensions filter it, and what the result contains. No output schema exists, so explicitly listing the returned fields is especially valuable.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents state, city, and service formats with examples. The description only restates the criteria at a high level and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('Servana's directory of local service businesses'), and defines the search dimensions (US state, city, service). It also lists return fields, making it clearly distinct from siblings like get_vendor and search_services.

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 tool is for location/service-based directory lookups by stating the search criteria. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_vendor or search_services, so the usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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