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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return format (structured records with known-for, rating, review count, canonical URL) and the geographic scope (14 cities). This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover pagination or sorting 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?

The description is a single, information-dense paragraph with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds city lists, categories, examples, and return format efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaningful details.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers purpose, scope, examples, and return format. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a search tool with good annotations, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds extra value by enumerating all 14 supported cities (schema only lists 8 examples), giving category examples, and providing query examples that clarify parameter usage. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Booyah Index for Southeast Asian local businesses, listing 14 cities and categories. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Search the Booyah Index') and distinguishes from siblings like search_products or get_place by focusing on places/businesses.

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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool (searching for local businesses/places) and provides example queries to illustrate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_products, though sibling names imply these distinctions.

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