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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description sensibly focuses on behavior beyond safety: what the result set contains (contact details, hours availability, count of published prices). That return-shape disclosure is real added value since no output schema exists, though it says nothing about empty results or limit behavior.

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, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only, open-world-disabled search with no output schema, the description covers the search dimensions and the returned fields. Minor gaps remain: no mention of result limits/default behavior or what an empty result set looks like.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical '(name, category, service, product)' does add meaning about which fields the query matches, which the schema's 'What the user needs' does not state, but city/state/limit/has_prices get no additional treatment.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Finds local businesses') and scopes it to a city, keyword and/or category, which is enough to tell it apart from get_business (single entity) and find_prices (price lookup). It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings by name.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by keyword ... and/or category' suggests the two search modes, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over find_prices or get_business, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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