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.