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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the result shape ('up to 5 businesses with name, phone, trade, service area, services and hours') and the geographic coverage ceiling. It stops short of describing ranking behavior or what happens when no match is found.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return shape, then the coverage caveat. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the cap of 5 results, plus the geographic limits. For a three-parameter lookup tool with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The prose enumerates trades in natural language ('plumber, HVAC, electrician, roofer, lawn care, tree service or fence'), which loosely maps caller vocabulary onto the enum values, but the 'problem' parameter is never addressed in the description and no added syntax is given for 'city'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('find a local, owner-operated home-service business') and enumerates the trades and states it covers, so the agent knows exactly what is being looked up. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling request_quote, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('Use this when someone needs a local, owner-operated home-service business ... in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa or Missouri') and warns that coverage is limited to listed metros and nearby towns. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or a pointer to request_quote as the alternative.

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