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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a genuinely useful caution that the network is small and mostly sample data, that non-real entries are named [DEMO] and flagged is_demo, and that the agent must check that field before acting. 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place—especially the demo-data warning and the free/no-key note. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. The demo-data warning and schema hints help, but the return shape, ranking semantics, and handling of availability_window are not explained in the description itself.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it merely lists high-level criteria names already visible as property names. It adds no guidance on nested location/price_band structures, allowed verticals, max_results cap, or date formats.

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 clearly states a specific action: given criteria, return ranked candidate businesses from the supply network. This distinguishes it from booking/verification siblings by its search-and-ranking role, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'Given criteria...' implies when to use the tool: you have vertical/location/capability requirements and need candidate businesses. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like verify_business or schedule_appointment would be more appropriate.

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