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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result set (alias/ID, name, categories, rating, review count, price tier, thumbnail) and that pagination is offset-based — valuable given there is no output schema. It omits any note on result caps or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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 purpose and scoping constraints are front-loaded in the first sentence, with follow-up uses in the second. It is compact for the amount of information conveyed, though the trailing list of use cases is slightly padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining pagination behavior. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully described input schema, an agent has what it needs to select and call this tool; only rate/result-limit guidance is absent.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the `l` example and the `start` offset semantics. The description adds only a light gloss on `l` as a map-bounded radius and on `domain` as targeting; that is marginal value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Runs a Yelp business search by keyword and location" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the optional scoping (map-bounded radius via `l`, domain targeting, offset pagination). It separates itself from siblings by naming the Yelp Place endpoint as the follow-up for full details, so an agent can distinguish search-listing from detail/review tools without opening a schema.

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?

It gives real use contexts (local-discovery UIs, market-share/competitor datasets) and explicitly routes the agent to the Yelp Place endpoint when full details are needed after getting aliases. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., when you already have an alias), but the sibling hand-off is clear enough to guide selection.

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