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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the output fields (giro, ciudad, estado de verificación), adding useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data' or mention limitations, but the low complexity keeps this acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and output fields, with every word contributing meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It states what is listed and key output attributes. No missing critical information given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter info because there are none; the schema is empty. The description's mention of output fields adds contextual value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with a clear resource ('todos los negocios conectados a Aisha') and specifies included fields (giro, ciudad, estado de verificación). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on reservations and services, not business listing.

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 clearly indicates the tool's scope ('todos los negocios conectados a Aisha') and the context is clear given sibling tool names (cancellations, reservations, services). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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