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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: each hit carries a businessAgent facet with claimStatus, capabilities, and inquiryUrl, and unclaimed rows remain callable. It does not describe result ordering or pagination behavior, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with what is searched and how broad it is. Every sentence adds value: searchable fields, source enumeration, return facet, and the follow-up tool. There is no redundant restatement of annotations or schema.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what can be searched, what a hit contains, and how to proceed for citation-safe detail. It leaves minor gaps around result ordering and whether the country parameter narrows beyond Hong Kong, but nothing essential to calling the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra credit by clarifying that the free-text q parameter matches name, address, licence number, or registryId, and by giving concrete source values (FEHD_RESTAURANT, CR_COMPANY, EHEALTH_HCP) that the schema only calls an optional enum.

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 gives a specific verb (search) and resource (Hong Kong official Business Agents) and quantifies scope (~60k+ registry rows). It names the searchable fields and source dimension clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_agents or get_registry, which keeps it from a 5.

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 provides clear usage context: unclaimed rows are still valid for lookup and create_inquiry, and the agent should follow up with get_merged_profile for citation-safe detail. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_agents or get_registry, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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