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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing the not_found return behavior and the shape of the payload, though it doesn't say what happens when the name is ambiguous or whether multiple matches collapse to one.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that puts the use case first and then the returned fields, with zero filler. It is a long sentence, but every clause carries information an agent needs, so the compression is justified.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the use case, the returned content, and the failure mode. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that the lookup targets a single named business but says nothing about how the optional category narrows or disambiguates results, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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?

A specific verb ('look up') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one named business in Gilbert, AZ'), and it enumerates what comes back: address, phone, website, rating, directory page, openings-tracker status. That single-business scope cleanly separates it from sibling list-style tools such as gilbert_best_of and gilbert_events without requiring a schema read.

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?

'Use for one named business' gives clear positive guidance on the triggering case, and the mention of the openings tracker implicitly points at how it relates to gilbert_openings. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for browsing categories or unnamed searches, where the siblings fit), so no explicit alternative routing.

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