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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key caveat that preview providers return modelled activity scenarios rather than business claims, and clarifies the hiring flag is 'observed'. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination, or read-only assurances, leaving room for more transparency.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and adds a critical data-quality caveat, earning a top score for conciseness and front-loading of key information.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main search dimensions and the preview-provider caveat. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a search tool, the core purpose and caveat are sufficiently communicated, making it fairly 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 baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to schema parameters (name, municipality, sector group, hiring flag) but does not add details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No extra semantic value is provided.

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 a public business directory by name, municipality, sector group, and observed hiring flag, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like search_businesses or search_licensed_businesses, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists search criteria but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how this compares to other search-related sibling tools such as search_businesses or search_hiring_activity.

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