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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are owner self-reports, not verified budget, and there is no authorization to contact owners outside the application flow — a genuine constraint on downstream agent 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The second sentence is a disclaimer rather than operational detail, but it earns its place by preventing misuse of the results.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations carry the return-shape and safety burden, so the description needn't explain them. However, for a five-parameter filtered/paginated browse tool with zero schema documentation, leaving every parameter unexplained and providing no sibling routing leaves meaningful gaps.

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% for all five parameters (limit, query, cursor, industry, geography), and the description never mentions any of them, so an agent gets no meaning for pagination semantics, query matching behavior, or how industry/geography values are formatted. It does not compensate at all for the total schema documentation gap.

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+resource: browsing public business (owner) requests, with the qualifier that they carry current website-control proof. That distinguishes it from the provider-browsing sibling, though it never names browse_service_providers or any other alternative explicitly.

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 second sentence sets expectations about what a request IS (owner-reported need, not a funded contract or permission to contact), which is useful framing, but it gives no when-to-use routing against the 19 siblings (e.g. browse_service_providers, match_demand_providers, search_businesses) and no prerequisites for filtering.

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