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

This is a read-only lookup with no side effects, so annotations already tell the agent it is non-destructive and safe to retry. The description adds useful context about result contents (per-result url, city, website) and caveats about data quality and licensing. The licensing warning is important but framed as a response-content caveat rather than operational behavior of the call itself.

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 scope are front-loaded, and the licensing disclaimer earns its place as a compliance-critical caveat. A few sentences (the tax registration definition, the example) could be tightened, but nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing result fields (city, website, per-result url). The main remaining gap is city filter behavior, but for a three-parameter read-only search the definition is sufficient 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 coverage is 67%; limit and cursor are documented in the schema, but city has no schema description. The description implies city is a location filter and supplies an example ({"city": "Glendale"}), yet does not explain matching semantics or how city interacts with the fixed Los Angeles scope.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Find residential property management companies on the A-du manager marketplace', with explicit scope (Los Angeles, single-family and ADUs) and explicit exclusions (multifamily-only, commercial). An agent can distinguish this from search_services or search without opening the 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?

Gives a concrete user-intent trigger ('who can manage my ADU rental for me') and negative scope ('Multifamily-only and commercial managers are excluded'), so when-to-use is clear. It does not name a sibling tool to fall back on for other service types, which keeps it from a 5.

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