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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, closed-world), and the description meaningfully supplements them with the coverage limitation ('Only Central Austin is covered') and a list of returned fields. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 efficient sentences with the trigger front-loaded and filters and outputs packed in. The Central Austin scope is stated twice (opening and closing), a minor redundancy, but nothing else wastes space.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields (name, category, address, website status, contact details, source link). It is complete enough for an all-optional-parameter search tool, though it omits any note on result ordering or paging.

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 60%, and the description largely restates the query example and the website/contact filters already documented in the schema (including the 'missing' definition). It adds almost nothing for limit or sector, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('list of local businesses'), the selection dimension ('by kind'), and the geographic scope ('Central Austin, TX'). The unrelated siblings (find_land, land_at) pose no confusion, so no sibling routing is needed.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when someone wants a list of local businesses...') and adds filter conditions (no website, has phone or email). It gives clear usage context but does not state when NOT to use it or point to any alternative tool.

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