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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the returned fields, the ranking policy (Blue-tier-and-above rated businesses sort first, free-tier businesses carry no ratings), and an authorization constraint for contact data. It does not mention pagination behavior or whether results are exhaustive, but the substantive behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return shape, ranking/tier semantics, and access requirement. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler, though the tier/ranking sentence is dense enough to need a second read.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating return fields and explaining the ranking order an agent must interpret. With zero annotations, an explicit read-only/safety statement and any pagination note would have closed the remaining gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented with examples. The description restates the three meaningful filters (query, city, industry) but adds no syntax, matching, or combination semantics, and never mentions the limit parameter — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) plus resource (businesses) and adds geography (Costa Rica) and the searchable facets (keyword, city, industry). It reads clearly against get_business (single-record fetch) and semantic_search, but never explicitly states the boundary, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given relative to the siblings — nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over semantic_search or when to follow up with get_business for full detail. The only constraint offered is an access precondition (contact details require a keyed connection), which is not routing guidance.

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