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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed world), so the description's job is to add context beyond them — which it does by disclosing the geographic scope limit (OK, KS, NE, IA, MO). That constraint is behaviorally important and not present in any structured field. It stops short of noting result size or whether counts are live.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the when-to-use and the return shape, the second carries the scope caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming cities and per-trade counts. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the single parameter, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the trade filter scopes the business counts returned ('how many businesses are listed per trade'), clarifying the semantics of an optional filter rather than merely restating it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check where Local Pros has listings') and precisely describes the return payload: every covered city with business counts per trade. An agent can distinguish it from find_local_pros and request_quote without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names two triggering conditions — before searching, or when find_local_pros returns nothing — and routes the agent by naming the sibling tool it complements. No inference required.

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