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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does this well: it states the maximum result count (20), sort order (alphabetically), returned fields, and explicitly discloses negative behavior: 'never a receipt and never an order by quality.' This goes well beyond a generic tool description.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, return behavior is compactly stated, and the follow-up instruction earns its place in the final sentence.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description accounts for return fields, limits, ordering, and ambiguity handling. The only gap is that it later references 'the match's license (or domain)' without clearly stating license/domain is among the returned match fields, since the listed return fields are id, address, market, and receipt URL.

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 mostly restates what the schema already says about q and market. It adds the useful framing 'across every market or in one,' but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find businesses on the record by part of a name or street address.' It also distinguishes itself from get_receipt by explicitly saying it 'never' returns a receipt, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when the person gave a name.' It also explains the follow-up tool and arguments: 'then call get_receipt with the match's license (or domain) and market.' The ambiguity policy ('Two plausible matches are a question for the person, not a guess') provides clear decision guidance.

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