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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting 'Returns censored listing data with titles and addresses handled according to listing visibility settings,' which discloses output censorship and visibility behavior not present in the 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers location, ranges, and return censorship, but given the tool has 38 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, it omits guidance on pagination (cursor/limit), ordering (orderByProperty/orderByDirection), and the overall result shape. For a complex search tool, this is a moderate gap, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the most complex parameters: location (natural-language vs bbox) and the min/max range pattern with concrete examples (minPrice/maxPrice, minRevenue/maxRevenue, etc.). It does not explain all 38 parameters, but many are self-explanatory from their names, and the description adds meaningful guidance for the trickier ones.

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's purpose: 'Search for businesses (listings) for sale on Venturu.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('businesses/listings'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_brokers and get_business by naming the platform and resource type.

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 provides usage context for parameters, such as 'Supports natural-language location ... or an exact bbox' and 'Use flat min/max fields for ranges.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_business for a single listing, search_brokers for brokers), so there's no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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