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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is searched and that ids are returned, but it omits notable behavioral details such as whether matching is partial or exact, any result limits, pagination, or the shape of the returned ids. It is not contradictory, but it leaves these traits unspecified.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds value by explaining the output's purpose. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core invocation context: what to search for, how the query is used, and what to do with the returned ids. Gaps such as pagination or exact match semantics remain, but the description is adequate for a simple search tool that feeds other tools.

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 0% for the 'query' parameter, but the description adds the crucial semantic detail that the query is a business name or slug. For a single-parameter tool, this is a meaningful addition beyond the raw schema. It stops short of describing matching behavior or formatting, but it sufficiently compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('bookable businesses on G-Guest'), and specifies the lookup mode ('by name or slug'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting that it returns ids used by fetch and booking tools, which clarifies its role relative to fetch/get_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 description implies when to use it: when you want to find businesses by name or slug and obtain ids for fetch or booking tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast search with fetch or get_business, nor does it state exclusions such as 'use fetch when you already have an id'. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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