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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape (cards with business_id, offerings, page_url) and, importantly, the semantics of demo: true listings and how to handle them. It still doesn't cover pagination or the behavior of limit/radius defaults.

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?

Purpose and covered categories are front-loaded in one sentence, and the location rule and demo caveat each earn their place. It runs long but no sentence is filler; slightly front-loading the demo caveat would improve scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (card fields plus the demo flag). The only material gap is undocumented limit/radius behavior on a 7-param tool.

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%, and the description conceptually covers four of seven params (query, city/country, near coordinates, category) while adding real value on the location-sourcing rule. limit and radius_km are undocumented in both description and schema, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Find local businesses that take bookings') and enumerates the domains it covers (salons, rentals, home services, tours), which distinguishes it at a glance from get_business and the owner_* siblings. An agent knows this is the discovery entry point rather than a lookup by id.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: pass city or near coordinates when you know the user's location, and explicitly warns that Awning does not infer location from the request. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives (e.g., use get_business once you have an id), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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