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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral detail: it reveals that premium-tier businesses appear first and that results include specific fields like rating and contact info. This goes beyond the obvious 'search' action, though it doesn't discuss pagination limits or potential side effects (which are minimal for a search).

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 four concise sentences, with the core action first, followed by filters, return fields, and an ordering note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers essential usage context and return fields, which is important because no output schema is present. It also mentions premium ordering. It doesn't explicitly discuss pagination behavior (offset/limit) or the need for both latitude and longitude, but those are partially conveyed by the schema, so the overall completeness is strong for a search tool.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level grouping ('filter by keyword, category, city/state, or geographic coordinates') that mirrors the schema but doesn't clarify syntax, relationships, or edge cases beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search for local businesses listed on HeySpark'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_business_details and get_reviews_summary which fetch specific records rather than list matching businesses. The return fields are also specified, leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 naturally communicates usage context by listing filter dimensions (keyword, category, city/state, coordinates) and the list output, implying when to use this tool — to discover businesses matching criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or contrast with siblings, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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