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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond that: a 24-result page cap, the presence of a citable page address, and the two distinct default sort regimes. It omits total-count behavior and what happens when a page exceeds the documented maximum.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then return shape, then sort behavior. No filler, though the sort sentence repeats detail already present in the schema's sort description and could be trimmed.

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 return-shape burden and does so adequately: result page size, the per-item page address for citation, and pagination semantics. It is nearly complete for a nine-parameter search tool, missing only guidance on narrowing versus broadening results when a query returns nothing.

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 nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'has' filter, the country ISO code and the category slug source. The description's sort explanation largely restates the schema's own sort description, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 plus scope: 'Search one country's listed businesses by words, category, town or region, and what the page carries.' That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this tool from the closest sibling, suggest_businesses, or explains when get_business would be preferred.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: word searches default to best match and browsing without words defaults to A to Z, which hints that the tool serves both lookup and browse modes. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusivity conditions, and no mention of the sibling tools that overlap (suggest_businesses, list_categories) beyond the incidental slug reference.

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