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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the result cap ('up to 10 listings') and the returned fields (category, area, link), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 verb and scope, then a concrete example. The example largely duplicates the schema's own example string, so one clause is redundant, but nothing is bloated.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is searched, what comes back, and how many results. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance versus guide_search.

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% and the parameter already carries examples ('yoga', 'bakery Jordaan'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same example and adds the notion of combining name, type and area in one string, which is a modest but real clarification.

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 local businesses in our Amsterdam directory') plus the search dimensions (name, type, area), which separates it from siblings like markets_today or jobs. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, guide_search, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a business directory.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for finding Amsterdam businesses, and the example 'bakery Jordaan' shows a combined name+area query. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as guide_search for editorial content.

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