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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results come back as cards containing business_id, offerings and page_url, and any card with demo:true is sample data that should be disclosed and de-prioritized. It also explains that location is not inferred from the request but comes from the server.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool finds and how to filter, then demo-flag handling, then routing. Four dense sentences with no filler; even the parenthetical category list earns its place by scoping expectations.

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 naming the returned fields (business_id, offerings, page_url) and the demo:true caveat. For a 7-parameter, optional-only search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the filtering modes at a conceptual level (text, city/country, coordinates/category) and, importantly, clarifying the semantics of location — 'Awning does not guess where the user is from the request... so pass their city or near coordinates when you know them'. It does not restate limits or radius formatting, but that is already in the schema.

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 ('Find') and resource ('local businesses that take bookings'), then enumerates the concrete verticals it covers (salons, courts, rentals, tours). It also distinguishes itself from three siblings by name — get_business for follow-up, my_bookings for the user's own bookings, owner_status for owners.

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 says 'Use this first when the user wants a place or a service; when they pick one, continue with get_business', giving both the entry condition and the handoff. Closes with two named exclusions (my_bookings, owner_status), so an agent need not infer routing.

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