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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the concrete result ceiling (up to 10), index freshness date, current coverage limits, the exact field set returned, and deliberately withheld data (no email addresses or personal data). That is meaningful behavioral disclosure an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with scope and cap before the return-field and disclaimer details. Coverage limitations are restated in both the first and last sentences, a minor redundancy that keeps it from being maximally efficient.

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 return-value burden and does so, enumerating the record fields (name, website, phone-layout flag, scan/source scope) and the omitted fields. Combined with the coverage and freshness caveats, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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 category, area and limit are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the same constraints (10-record cap, Fresno County, dentists). It adds no syntax, format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 verb+resource (returns public business records), states the exact scope (dental businesses in Fresno County, CA, scanned 2026-09-30) and the result cap, so an agent knows precisely what this tool yields. The sibling tools (check_https, site_info) are in unrelated domains, so no differentiation is needed. It also proactively forbids misreading it as a directory or ranking.

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 explains the effective usage window via its coverage constraints (currently small, dated index; dentists in Fresno County only) and explicitly warns 'This is not a complete directory or ranking', which tells the agent when results will be sparse or unrepresentative. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-call conditions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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