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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does disclose the return behavior (returns each business with matched items and price or 'cotizar'). However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., search-only, no writes) or any data limits. The absence of annotations and lack of behavioral details keep this at a 3.

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 (bilingual) and front-loads the core purpose immediately. It includes examples and the sibling complement without excess. However, the bilingual repetition doubles length without adding new content, slightly reducing efficiency, but it remains concise overall.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, one nested object, no output schema), the description adequately explains the search semantics and return structure. It does not cover possible edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for a search tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the main 'consulta' parameter through examples, but does not provide additional semantics for 'ciudad' or 'ubicacion' beyond their schema descriptions. The value added is minimal, hence a score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('businesses by what they offer'), with concrete examples ('zumba classes', 'men's haircut') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool buscar_negocios by contrasting the search dimension (offering vs name/category). This fully differentiates it from the closest sibling.

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?

It states when to use this tool (when searching by offering) and explicitly complements buscar_negocios, implying an alternative for name/category searches. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the clear complement relationship provides sufficient context for selection decisions.

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