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

Annotations already establish read-only behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety guarantees. It adds value by disclosing the return shape ('cards with business_id, offerings and page_url') and the filtering modes, giving the agent a concrete sense of what the call produces.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and scope, the second states filters and return fields. The category list is long but informative, and the most important behavioral fact (returns cards) is placed near the end without bloating the description.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, main filter options, and result fields. It does not describe pagination or the relationship between coordinates and radius, but those are minor given self-explanatory parameter names and schema constraints.

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 only 43%, so the description carries some burden. It adds meaning by mapping filter dimensions to categories of parameters ('text', 'city/country or coordinates', 'category'), but it does not clarify limit or radius_km, and those parameters lack schema descriptions; the compensation is partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('local businesses that take bookings'), enumerating relevant categories and filter dimensions. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like get_business, but the search-focused scope is clear from the return-card language.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to discover local bookable businesses by text, location, or category. However, it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_business for a single business's details.

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