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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds significant context: returned URLs return HTTP 402 with payment terms, payment settles to the business, and failed calls are not charged. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The return fields are front-loaded, and the important payment-behavior caveat is stated compactly without repeating the tool name or title.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and explains the behavioral semantics of those returned endpoints, including the 402 response and no-charge-on-failure guarantee. For a one-parameter read-only listing tool, this is 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 single domain parameter is already fully described in the input schema with a concrete example, and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('priced endpoints a verified business publishes'), and it names the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_business_offerings and list_verified_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 purpose is obvious, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The distinction from list_business_offerings is implied rather than stated.

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