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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that franchises/chains are excluded by editorial policy and that unranked companies are included with reasons. This supplements the readOnly/idempotent hints with domain-specific rules, though it does not cover pagination or other possible behaviors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. The policy note about franchises/chains is concise and relevant, with no redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list tool with a clear output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main behavior, scope, and an editorial exception. It does not mention limit/pagination behavior, but the output schema and annotations largely compensate, making this fairly 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 schema already provides descriptions for metro, category, and include_bubble; the description adds no new detail about the limit parameter or how params interact. It confirms the single metro/category scope but does not enhance the existing schema descriptions, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns a ranked list of independent companies for a specific metro and category, with scores, verification status, and reasons for unranked companies. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the single category/metro scope, making it unmistakable.

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 implies the use case—retrieving rankings for a specific metro/category—and the sibling tools (e.g., search_businesses, compare_businesses) are obviously different. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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