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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: fuzzy name matching, ranking rules, neighborhood boundary filtering, citation URL rules, and privacy constraints for unlisted or under-review records. It adds substantial operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains information-dense throughout. It is somewhat long as a single paragraph, but nearly every sentence carries useful scope, ranking, citation, or privacy information.

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 supplies the return context an agent needs: facts and sources, methods and check dates, page URLs for citation, and what is suppressed for unlisted or under-review records. That is complete for a read-only search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description reinforces the query matching semantics and some filter behavior, but it does not add much parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches Milwaukee business records by name, including both listed and unlisted records. It clearly scopes the data to city license and property sources and explains the matching basis, which makes the tool distinguishable from a generic place search or record fetch.

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 gives a clear usage context by explaining name-similarity matching, ranking behavior, and filterable dimensions. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_places or search and does not state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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