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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: the supply network is mostly sample data with [DEMO] entries, availability_window is not applied, no live calendars are held, and no key is required. 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?

The description is well-structured with a front-loaded core statement, labeled usage sections, example queries, and operational notes like cost and latency. Every section earns its place; the examples are repetitive but directly help with parameter mapping.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys what the response contains (ranked candidates with an is_demo flag), warns how to treat sample data, and connects the tool to downstream scheduling/messaging usage. For a read-only search tool with strong annotations, this is 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?

The examples add real semantics by mapping natural-language queries to exact vertical values, location formats, and capability strings, and the schema itself documents availability_window's non-applied behavior. However, price_band and max_results receive only surface-level coverage, with no deeper explanation of ranking implications or formatting, so it falls just short of perfect.

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 opening sentence names a specific action (return ranked candidate businesses) and a resource (our supply network), while enumerating the matching criteria. It also differentiates the tool from discovery-focused workflows and sibling tools by framing it as the search step before scheduling or messaging.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections tell the agent to invoke this before schedule_appointment or send_message when no SMB target exists, and to avoid it when a verified target is already known or when outside the supported verticals. This is strong routing guidance.

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