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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are returned in random order, the guide does not rank them, and two of the results are FICTIONAL test entries. The fictional-results disclosure is especially valuable for preventing the agent from presenting fake businesses as real. Pagination/result-count behavior is still unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with result-ordering and fictional-example caveats following. The parenthetical detail about the bakery in Bodø and the bilingual Bergen guesthouse is slightly verbose but serves a real disambiguation purpose.

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 read-only, three-parameter search with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers corpus scope and result-ordering semantics. It omits result limits and whether empty result sets are possible, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 need, country, and postal_code are already well documented (including 'leave out to search all countries'). The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 gives a specific verb (finds) and resource (businesses in the guide that can help with a need) and characterizes the corpus (verified AI-business-card registrants plus two fictional examples). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_business or ai_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'can help with a need' and by the scope note about the guide, so an agent can infer this is the need-based discovery entry point. However, no when-not-to-use condition or named alternative (check_business, ai_check, find_public_help) is given.

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