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

Adds behavior that annotations cannot express: the tool returns a framework, not the finished analysis, it fetches no data itself, and the calling model must run the procedure with its own web search. This is consistent with (and adds meaning to) readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false rather than contradicting them.

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?

The key insight — framework, not analysis — is front-loaded in the first clause, and the no-data-fetch caveat follows immediately. The three example invocations are useful but slightly pad the length, and a stray double period ('question..') is a minor blemish.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the framework nature, the no-fetch behavior, and entry conditions. It could say more about when to graduate to sibling tools, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter (business_name, city_metro, category) is already well documented in the schema, including the caution not to guess the category from the name. The description adds only the 'one named business' scoping constraint, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable — a research framework (procedure, output schema, quality rubric) for a structured teardown of ONE named small business — and enumerates the covered dimensions (digital presence, review signal, competitive position, pricing, visibility gaps, recommendations). The scope word 'ONE' implicitly separates it from multi-business siblings like competitor_landscape and market_opportunity_scan.

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?

'Start here for any single-business question' gives a clear entry condition, and the three example invocations show the intended shape of a request. It never explicitly names which sibling to use instead for multi-business or benchmark questions, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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