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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond that — it doesn't say how results are ordered, whether matches are fuzzy or exact, or what happens when "what" matches nothing, which matters for an open-world discovery tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing is repeated or 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?

A three-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete annotations needs little more than this. The remaining gap is that it never characterizes the result set (fields returned, how many matches, empty-result behavior) for a tool with no output schema.

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%, including examples for "what" and "where" and the limit default/min/max, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the optional country/city behavior already documented in the "where" parameter, adding no matching semantics (e.g. whether "India" matches city-level records).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find businesses on Knowasiak") plus the scoping dimension (what they do, optional country/city). It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling "search" tool, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 it when someone wants a supplier, agency, service provider or partner" gives a concrete intent trigger that maps well to real user requests. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at the sibling "search"/"fetch" tools, so routing between them is still left to inference.

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