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

Annotations already establish this as a non-destructive read, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the cursor and its results are only retained for 24 hours, which tells the agent paging is time-bounded and non-durable. It does not say what happens on an expired cursor or whether the final page is signaled, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

A single compact sentence leads with what the tool returns, then the retention limit, then the strategic advice — every clause carries distinct information with 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?

For a one-parameter pagination tool with no output schema, the description covers the source of the cursor, the retention window, and the preferred alternative strategy. Minor gaps remain around end-of-results signaling and expired-cursor behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the cursor property already explains it comes from the last find_local_businesses or more_results response. The description echoes that the cursor is "the next_cursor the search returned" but adds no format, validity, or length detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific function — fetching the next page of a search using the cursor returned by the prior search — which is distinct from the sibling lookup tools like find_local_businesses and get_business_record. It stops short of naming the originating search tool, leaving that linkage to the schema, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

"Narrowing the need usually beats paging" gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance that steers the agent toward refining the query instead of paginating. The positive trigger — call this when a search response includes a next_cursor — is only implied via the schema, not stated in the description.

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