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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining how the search behaves: it resolves synonyms ('plumber' and 'destapar caneria' work), supports Spanish and English, and defaults to nationwide without coordinates. This adds valuable transparency about multilingual support and synonym handling that is not in the schema or annotations.

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 three sentences covering purpose, usage nuances, and special behavior. No filler or redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information for correct tool usage.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and only two sibling tools, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, how to use it (free text, geographic limits), language support, and the empty-query service list. It doesn't mention pagination or result formatting, but that's not critical given the simplicity and the fact that it's a search endpoint.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the 'query' parameter accepts free text and that an empty query returns a service list, and clarifies that lat/lng limit results to a geographic area. This additional context elevates the score.

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's purpose: to find local businesses and independent professionals by what they do. It specifies the input type (free text in Spanish or English) and the optional geographic filtering, distinguishing it from the sibling get_business which likely retrieves a specific business. The verb 'find' and resource 'local businesses' are explicit.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for searching by service or profession, with optional lat/lng to narrow results. It also explains the empty-query behavior (to get list of services). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling, the usage context is sufficient for an agent to decide correctly.

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