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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a concrete behavioral detail beyond that: results are capped at 10 businesses and include locations and a booking page, which tells the agent what to expect in the response and that result sets are bounded.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the return behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (up to 10 businesses with locations and booking page), which is the main gap the missing output schema would otherwise create. Minor omissions (empty-result behavior, whether the cap is paginable) keep it short of perfect.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples in the schema. The description's "by name, service or city" loosely maps to query and near but adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Find) and resource (salons, barbershops, spas, studios taking online bookings on Belcome), so the function is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings find_slots or list_services, but the resource boundary is clear enough that an agent can distinguish them.

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?

"by name, service or city" implies the supported lookup modes and therefore how to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no when-not, and no pointer to find_slots for availability or list_services for service catalogs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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