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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: results capped at 10, ordered by word-match closeness then name, no paid ranking, only owner-verified Orbylon businesses are eligible, and the exact fields each result returns.

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?

Purpose and examples are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information (ranking, coverage limits, result fields, next-tool routing, test city). It is one dense run-on paragraph with some redundancy ("Both are required" duplicates the schema), which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the result fields, the maximum result count, ordering rules, and eligibility constraints, plus the tool to call next for each item type. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds concrete examples that clarify the intended granularity of each field ("espresso beans"/"Montreal", "plumber"/"H2X"). It restates that both are required, which the schema already encodes, so the lift is modest.

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 with scope: find businesses selling what the customer needs in a named place, with two concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from lookup_business and list_business_offerings by describing a need+place search over Orbylon-published 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?

Gives worked examples, states both parameters are required, names the test place for fictional data, and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool per result type (place_order, request_quote, list_business_offerings). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus the sibling lookup_business, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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