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

The description mentions the fallback behavior when no location or city is provided, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, sorting, or error handling, and there are no annotations to supplement.

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 concise, with no redundant words, and clearly structured in both English and Spanish. It efficiently conveys the necessary information without fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core functionality and a key behavioral nuance. It does not address limitations like result quantity or sorting, but these are not critical for basic understanding.

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?

While the schema includes descriptions for each parameter, the tool description adds context about optionality—specifically that omitting location and city yields a country/global listing. This additional semantic enriches the parameter understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches businesses in a public directory for Miami–Central America, with specific filters. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like event search or reservation tools.

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 use for business searches but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use it, such as when searching events or making reservations.

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