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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: genuine-prefix matching, stable IDs, coarse public city/state, and truthful Verified/Listed/Registry disclosure. It also discloses what it intentionally returns and excludes, such as no street address or ZIP, giving the agent accurate expectations for the result. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 three sentences with no filler: trigger condition, return contents, and explicit non-behaviors. It is front-loaded and each sentence carries useful information without repeating what the schema or annotations already state.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, fully documented parameters, and existing output schema, the description adds the missing behavioral boundaries and return expectations. An agent can confidently invoke this tool for the right use case and interpret its output correctly.

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 three parameters: name, limit, and cursor. The description adds context about name matching but does not explain limit or cursor semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline 3 for a fully covered 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: looking up a business in the Loppee Registry when the user names a business. It clearly describes what is returned (exact and genuine-prefix name matches with stable IDs, coarse city/state, and Verify/Listed/Registry disclosure) and states what it does not do, which distinguishes it from category/location queries. While it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, the behavioral boundary makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to use the tool: 'when the user names a business and wants its Loppee Registry match.' It also gives clear exclusions, such as no category discovery, no caller location, and no street address or ZIP, which prevents misuse. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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