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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not needed for basic safety. It adds substantial behavioral context: the network is small and mostly sample data, demo entries are named [DEMO] and flagged is_demo, and availability_window is accepted but not applied and the response carries availability_window_applied: false. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 detailed but well-organized and every section earns its place: core function, critical demo-data warning, example mappings, explicit usage rules, and operational notes. Important caveats are front-loaded before the examples and when-to-use guidance.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and non-trivial nested parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context, demo-data caveat, and non-applied availability_window semantics. It could go slightly further by describing the shape of a ranked result beyond the is_demo flag, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results correctly in most cases.

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?

Although schema coverage is only 50%, the description's example queries add concrete mappings from natural-language requests to JSON arguments for vertical, location, and capability. The schema already explains availability_window's non-applied behavior and provides defaults/constraints for max_results and radius_miles; remaining params like price_band are self-explanatory from their schema structure.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'return ranked candidate businesses from our supply network' given explicit criteria. It also distinguishes itself from a general directory/browsing tool and from tools like verify_business by explicitly ruling out use when a verified SMB identifier is already held.

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 provides both explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE guidance, along with three example user queries mapped directly to call arguments. It names alternatives such as schedule_appointment and send_message and states conditions for preferring them, leaving little to inference.

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