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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world semantics. The description adds real context beyond that: the shape of each result (lesson + business + themes), the max-50 limit, and a cost/quota model (free, 100 calls/day without a key) that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 dense sentences: capability and filters first, worked example second, cost note last. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still summarizes result shape and quota. The only gap is pagination behavior — it's unclear whether limit is a hard cap on total results or whether more can be fetched beyond 50.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the enum values and accepted labels. The description's example illustrates how theme and limit combine, which is marginally useful, but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('Returns builder lessons from every business') plus what each result carries (business and themes). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_businesses or get_business, though it never names those siblings explicitly to confirm the contrast.

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?

It describes how to narrow results ('filter by query and/or theme') and provides a concrete example call, which implies the intended discovery use case. But with 13 siblings, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus search_businesses/get_business, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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