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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It openly states that results include the date of last human verification, a key behavioral trait, and that the directory is hand-verified. It also implies a read-only search operation via 'Busca'. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a straightforward search tool the coverage is solid.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second explains the unique return value and why it matters. It's front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly explains the return values (name, phone, address, verification date). It also provides geographic context and the directory's curation method. It does not detail pagination or parameter effects on output, but for a simple search tool with three parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context that results include a verification date, but it does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Schema does the heavy lifting, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Busca') and identifies the exact resource: verified local businesses and services in Puerto Rico, with a geographic focus on Cabo Rojo and the west. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (recalls, citations, local demand, health deserts, events) by topic and by its unique human-verification date output.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need local business info from a hand-verified directory, especially for Puerto Rican towns, and it contrasts itself with Google Places. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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