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

Adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: returns up to 20 alphabetical matches, never orders by quality, never returns a receipt, and clarifies that facts are verified but the booking is not approved. These are important expectation-setting details that the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints do not cover.

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 description is front-loaded with the trigger condition and workflow, and every sentence contributes a distinct piece of guidance. The final 'We verify source facts. We do not approve the booking.' is slightly tangential and could be trimmed, but the overall structure is efficient for an agent.

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 compensates by detailing the return shape (up to 20 matches, id, address, market, receipt URL), the ambiguity handling, and the next step. The only minor gap is that it says to pass the match's 'license (or domain)' without explicitly listing 'license' among the returned match fields.

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%, so both q and market are already well documented. The description mostly restates the market behavior ('across every market or in one') without adding new semantic detail, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 action ('Find businesses on the record by part of a name or street address') and ties it to a concrete workflow need: obtaining a record id before calling get_receipt. It clearly differentiates itself from the get_receipt sibling and describes the resource being searched.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Call when the person gave a name or street fragment...') and tells the agent exactly when to stop and ask the person rather than deciding. It also provides a direct follow-up step ('Then call get_receipt with the match’s license...'), leaving no ambiguity about the intended flow.

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