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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavioral details: the returned fields and the fact that contact details require a keyed connection. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, filter combination semantics, ordering, and what 'citation-ready URL' implies, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and search criteria, then states the return payload, and closes with the access caveat about contact details. Every sentence earns 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 read-only search tool, the description covers the essential purpose, output fields, and an important access restriction, which is adequate. But with no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling named semantic_search, missing details about filter combination, pagination, and when semantic_search is preferable make it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description loosely maps 'keyword, city, or industry' to query, city, and industry, but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as whether filters combine with AND/OR or how limit interacts with the search.

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 identifies a search tool for businesses in Costa Rica, naming the action and the main filter dimensions: keyword, city, and industry. It is distinct from get_business, find_jobs, get_events, and get_specials, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling semantic_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool (when searching for businesses) but gives no explicit guidance about choosing it over get_business or semantic_search, and provides no exclusions or prerequisites. The keyed-connection note hints at a limitation but does not explain how that should affect tool selection.

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