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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the data source caveat (OpenStreetMap/Overture, not confirmed by the business), the no-login requirement, and the opening-status behavior at a requested time. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose (what, where, sorting, opening status) and then add the data caveat and auth note. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant. Slightly long but appropriate given the tool's scope.

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 13-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core use case well (location types, sorting, opening status, data caveat). However, it does not describe the return format or result fields, which is notable since there is no output schema to fill that gap. It also doesn't mention limit behavior beyond what the schema default suggests.

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 77%, which is high, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds marginal value: it links the category examples to the category parameter and the opening-status mention maps to open_at_time. But it doesn't clarify radius semantics, the interaction of plz/lat/lon/city, or the priority of location parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Findet'), names the resource ('lokale Betriebe einer Kategorie'), and scopes it precisely to Germany with example categories (Zahnärzte, Banken, Elektriker). It distinguishes itself from siblings: this is the proximity search tool, while get_business and list_categories clearly serve different purposes.

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 use case is clearly implied: find businesses near a PLZ/coordinate/city sorted by distance. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer (e.g., when a single business detail is needed, use get_business). The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are left to inference.

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