Returns matching businesses; IDs look like US-VA:11406679, dates use YYYY-MM-DD, and next_cursor pages through more results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| entity_type | No | ||
| formed_after | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| formed_before | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination via next_cursor, ID format (US-VA:11406679), and date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which are useful behavioral details beyond the schema. However, it omits other important behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether results are read-only, so it is only moderately transparent.
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 with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it crams purpose, ID format, date format, and pagination into one run-on clause, which slightly reduces readability. It is still appropriately sized for the information provided.
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 search tool with 8 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks explanations of most filter parameters, does not describe return fields beyond ID format, and provides no guidance on result structure or usage context. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It only addresses cursor (via next_cursor) and date parameters (via YYYY-MM-DD), and hints at ID format for jurisdiction. Parameters q, limit, status, and entity_type are left completely unexplained, making the parameter semantics inadequate.
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 the tool returns matching businesses, which is essentially a restatement of the name search_businesses. It adds 'matching' as a scope hint, but does not clarify what criteria are used or differentiate it from a generic list operation. The first clause is borderline tautological, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_business or search_events. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description merely states what it returns, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.