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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description adds real value instead of repeating them: it discloses that rows and the envelope carry `data_coverage` scoped to directory identity only, that unknown evidence dates stay unknown, and that an empty name match does not imply city-wide absence. Those are non-obvious interpretation caveats an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope before the caveats. Terms like 'envelope' and 'data_coverage' are terse but each sentence carries distinct information, so nothing reads as filler.

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 2-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input intent, the return value (ids for get_business), and the coverage/empty-result semantics. The only meaningful omission is how name matching works, which matters for interpreting an empty result.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that `near` takes a town or street (the param name alone suggests a coordinate or radius) and that it is optional, but it says nothing about `name` matching behavior (exact vs partial, the 3-char minimum) or the 120-char limits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds a business by name') plus the optional narrowing dimensions, and indicates the output is ids meant for get_business. It also gestures at the sibling distinction ('a shopper names a shop rather than a place'), though it never names find_nearby_businesses or discover_local directly.

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?

'Useful when a shopper names a shop rather than a place' gives a clear selection condition, and 'Returns ids for get_business' documents the follow-up step in the pipeline. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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