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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: confidential listings are 'blind-safe' and carry no company number. That tells the agent not to expect a company identifier on every row, which it could not learn from the schema. It still says nothing about pagination or result shape.

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 short and front-loads the resource name, but the Hebrew text restates the same two facts already given in English ('active listings only', 'discreet listing has no company number'), so roughly half the content is duplicated rather than additive.

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 and no annotations explaining returns, the description should say more about what a listing contains; it only discloses the blind-safe quirk. Combined with 100%-covered parameters and safety annotations, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the returned fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so city, limit, and category are already documented with types and constraints (max 20, default 10). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (IsraBase marketplace listings / עסקים למכירה) and a scope constraint ('active listings only'), so the agent knows this is a browse-the-marketplace tool rather than a company lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_companies, but the resource is distinct enough to distinguish from siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_companies or get_company, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implicit 'active listings only' scope, which the agent must infer.

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