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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: data provenance (OpenStreetMap/Overture), the caveat that entries are not confirmed by the business, and that no login is required.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (capability/scope, data provenance caveat, access requirement), front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler, though the example category list is slightly redundant with the schema's category description.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, location modes, sort order and open-status semantics, but is silent on what a result contains (distance, hours, contact fields), on the limit default/maximum behavior, and on how the many boolean filters (has_phone, has_website, booking_capable, has_booking_url) relate to each other.

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 81%, so the schema already documents most parameters (at, plz, city, service, open_only, radius_km, etc.). The description restates the location modes and category examples but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (findet) and resource (lokale Betriebe einer Kategorie) plus scope: Germany, radius around PLZ/coordinate/place, sorted by distance, with opening status. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_business or sandbox_list_sample_businesses, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the described query modes (PLZ, Koordinate, Ort) and the note that no login is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_business for a single record, list_categories for valid slugs) despite the description depending on list_categories categories.

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