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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating what each result carries (name, type, neighbourhood, map link, website only for featured businesses, owner claim/correct link), which tells the agent how to interpret sparse fields. It stops short of describing empty-result or pagination behaviour.

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?

Two sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the filter/then-return structure easy to scan. The promotional framing ('Riviera Maya Elite's', 'curated picks') carries mild filler weight but also conveys coverage limits, so it is close to earning its place.

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 six-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and a return-value summary adequately. Minor gaps are how results are ordered and what an empty result set looks like, neither of which blocks correct invocation.

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 meaning the schema does not: it clarifies that free-text matching spans name, type and neighbourhood, and that featured businesses are the ones with a website (tying featured_only to a visible outcome). Area/category/limit semantics remain entirely schema-driven.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource (directory of local businesses) and explicit corpus scope ('over 2,000 in Playa del Carmen plus curated picks for Akumal and Cancún'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_business (single listing) and list_categories (which it names as the source of category keys).

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?

It gives concrete usage examples for the free-text filter ('tacos centro', 'dentist', 'boat tours') and states that category comes from list_categories, which is genuine how-to guidance. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to siblings such as get_business for a known business; the agent must infer the division of labour.

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