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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context the annotations do not: results are randomly ordered with no ranking, and the corpus deliberately contains two fictional example businesses, which is critical for an agent not to present fake listings as real.

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 dense sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical detail about the bakery and guesthouse is somewhat long, though it justifies itself by flagging the fictional test data.

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 carries the burden of describing results and does so: random order, no ranking, and the composition of the guide. It does not describe result shape or pagination, but for a three-parameter read-only search it is nearly complete.

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 need/country/postal_code are already documented, including the 'leave out to search all countries' and 'ask the consumer' guidance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds businesses in the guide that can help with a need') and characterizes the underlying dataset. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_political_party, find_public_help, and check_business.

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 need-based framing implies when to use it, and the description notes the guide does not rank, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. check_business for validating a known business). Usage must be inferred.

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