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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the description needn't re-explain safety. It adds real value by disclosing the returned fields and, importantly, that contact details are withheld and live on the listing page — a limitation an agent could not predict from the schema or annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return shape. The category example list is the only slightly padded element, though it usefully signals breadth. No filler or restatement of the 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in and names the return fields (business name, category, area, listing link) plus the contact-detail limitation, which is the right call. Minor gap: it says nothing about result ordering or what an empty city match means, despite a limit parameter with a 20 cap.

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% with examples for city, country and limit, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the 'in or near' nuance for city and a partial sampling of the category enum; it does not explain how the 35 enum values map to user intent or what happens with unmatched categories.

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 ('Find') and resource ('local service businesses listed on The Spool List') with a clear geographic scope ('in or near a city'). The category examples sharpen what counts as a 'service business', though no sibling tool is named or explicitly excluded, so an agent must infer the boundary with search_makers on its own.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for locating businesses by city, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to any alternative. Acceptable, not instructive.

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