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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns slugs, operates on 'registered businesses,' and is intended as a prerequisite step. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and conditional are front-loaded, and the usage direction is appended in a short, imperative second sentence. Every word contributes.

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, combined with the full parameter schema and safety annotations, covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. Since an output schema exists, return value details are already structured. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% — both 'search' and 'location' already have descriptive text explaining matching and geographic narrowing. The description only restates 'search term and optional location' without adding format, syntax, or examples beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find registered businesses') and adds what it returns ('matches with their slugs'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the business-specific sibling tools by positioning itself as the lookup step, not the action tool.

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 instruction 'Call it before the business-specific tools' gives explicit when-to-use context and names the alternative category (the sibling tools). It stops short of giving an explicit when-not-to-use scenario, such as 'if you already have a slug, skip this tool,' so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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