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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the directory has 958 listings, filters are optional, and near_lat/near_lng sort by distance within radius_km. It still omits return format and pagination, but the annotation bar is lower.

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 compact sentences with the purpose and dataset size front-loaded. Each sentence adds information without repetition or 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?

This is a complex 15-parameter search tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions. The description covers the dataset scope and a few key filters, but it is far too thin to explain the many boolean and numeric filter parameters. An agent would have to infer most parameter behavior from names alone.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains place, category, near_lat/near_lng, and radius_km reasonably well, but leaves query, limit, amenity, open_now, open_sunday, open_24_hours, bookable_only, has_free_trial, contactable_only, and max_monthly_price undocumented. That is only partial compensation for a large parameter surface.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search Brick NJ Local (958 listings).' It also scopes the dataset to a local directory and mentions that category values come from list_categories. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_business, list_places, or list_categories beyond that hint.

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?

'All filters optional' clarifies that the search can be broad, and 'category = a name from list_categories' routes the agent to a sibling for category values. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_business or list_places, nor when not to use it.

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