Nearwick business directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that results include external website data with a read date, dated checks, and whether the business manages the page. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the full content scope, and the second sentence gives the exact input derivation pattern. The list of returned data is dense but every item maps to actual page content, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating business details, external website claims with read dates, dated checks, and management status. The input derivation and required parameters are also fully covered, making the definition complete for a simple read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are individually described. The description adds meaning by showing the URL pattern /{country}/b/{slug} and clarifying that the slug comes from either the page address or search_businesses, giving the agent concrete provenance for both inputs rather than only their types.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb-resource: retrieving the full Nearwick business page for a country and slug. It enumerates the exact content included (location, website, opening hours, dated checks, management status) and distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools by targeting a specific page rather than finding businesses.

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 clear operational context: use the country code and slug from the page address. It also indirectly points to search_businesses as the source of the slug via the schema. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or how the country code affects results. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence packs the core output details, and the second gives a practical next step. Slight awkwardness in 'The kinds of business a country lists' but it is still efficient and 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete: it explains what the response contains and how the output should be used. The schema covers the only input, annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed given the descriptive output summary.

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%, and the single required parameter 'country' is fully documented in the schema with format and examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly identifies the resource (categories of business for a country) and the main output components (subcategories, counts, and top towns/regions). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_countries, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'Lists...'.

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 provides a clear downstream usage context: 'Use a category slug with search_businesses.' This tells an agent why they would call this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with list_countries or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that only countries with listed businesses are included, and that the response contains a count and a directory address. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a simple no-parameter listing these are minor omissions.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Every country with businesses listed on Nearwick') and immediately appends the two key output details. There is no filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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 carries the responsibility for explaining the return shape, and it does state the two main elements: business count and directory address. It does not specify sorting, pagination, or field names, which could matter for programmatic use, but for a simple directory list with no parameters the definition is reasonably 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them trivially. Per the baseline rule, 0 params earns a 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 ('list') and resource ('countries'), and states exactly what is returned: every country with businesses on Nearwick, the business count per country, and the directory address. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business or search_businesses, which operate at the business or category level.

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 this tool is for retrieving a country-level directory, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. An agent can infer its purpose from the phrasing, but there is no direct guidance such as 'for business details, use get_business' or 'for searching, use search_businesses.' This is adequate but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: result pagination of up to 24 per page, inclusion of a Nearwick page address for citation, and the two supported result orderings. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tightly written sentences carry the full picture: what is searched, how results are filtered, page size, output content, and ordering. Nothing is wasted and the most important action and resource are 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly notes result size and the key return content (Nearwick page address for citation). Combined with the rich input schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly, though it could marginally expand on result fields.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds high-level meaning by mentioning words, category, town/region, and page attributes, but it does not need to repeat parameter details; it stays at a useful conceptual level rather than compensating for missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching one country's listed businesses. It also enumerates the searchable dimensions—words, category, town or region, and page attributes—making the tool's scope immediately recognizable and distinguishable from the singular get_business or list-only siblings.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: searching businesses within a single country using filters like category, location, or words. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus get_business, list_categories, or list_countries.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour. The description adds meaningful behavioural context on top: it returns up to 8 ranked listings, includes per-listing reasons, exposes the full match search, and explains the fallback widening behaviour when nothing fully fits. This tells the agent what to expect without relying on an output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose and examples, behaviour and output shape, and the edge-case narrative. The core action is front-loaded and there is no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 fully carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: ranking, count, reasons, the widening fallback, and the relationship to the full search result. For a two-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by decomposing what the free-text request can encode: business kind, town/neighbourhood, days, and page content. This helps the agent construct a richer request than the schema's generic 'plain words' guidance alone.

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 ('Suggest') plus resource ('businesses for a request') and immediately gives concrete examples of input phrasing. It clearly distinguishes this from a plain search by promising 'up to 8 listings in order of fit' and the underlying 'search that shows every match', so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like search_businesses.

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 makes the intended context clear: use when the user expresses a need in their own words, mentioning business type, location, days, and page requirements. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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