Independents Only

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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context by disclosing that results come from two sources: curated listings and a chain/franchise brand database. What it omits is the ambiguous case — what happens when a business appears in neither list — which is exactly the behavior an agent needs to interpret a negative result.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding: the capability and its data sources come first, the usage trigger second. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description should convey the shape of the answer (independent / chain / unknown) and how a no-match is reported. It covers what the tool does and when to call it, but leaves result interpretation entirely to the agent's inference.

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 'name' and 'website' are already documented inline, and the description adds no additional meaning such as whether 'website' improves match confidence or how names are normalized. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the work.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (a business) and states the two data sources consulted: Independents Only's listings and a chain/franchise brand list. It is clear what the tool answers, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools beyond the implied 'single business lookup' framing.

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 when-to-use trigger — 'Use when someone asks whether a particular shop, café, hotel or trader is independent or part of a chain' — with concrete entity examples. There are no when-not conditions or explicit pointers to search_independent_businesses or suggest_independent_business for adjacent needs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world scope are covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: results come from a vetted, "checked" list and exclude chains, franchises, directories and lead-generation sites, which tells the agent the result set is curated rather than a general web index. It does not disclose result shape, paging behavior via limit, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 sentences, no filler: scope first, exclusions second, call-to-action and parameter mapping last. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 four-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema and solid annotations, the description covers scope, excluded sources, and usage triggers well. Minor gaps are the unmentioned `category` enum values and `limit` cap of 25, but these are fully specified in the schema.

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?

The final sentence maps intent to arguments — put the trade or kind of business in `query`, the town or area in `location` — which is useful routing but largely restates the schema's own examples ('plumber', 'Hertford'). With 75% schema coverage the remaining parameters (`category` and `limit`) are neither explained nor given behavioral meaning in the description, so this sits at 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — searching a curated list of independent, owner-run local businesses — and enumerates the covered sectors (shops, trades, food and drink, places to stay, professional services). It also states what is excluded (chains, franchises, directories, lead-generation sites), which sharpens the scope considerably. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the siblings suggest_independent_business and check_business_independence, so an agent must infer the search-vs-suggest-vs-verify split from the names alone.

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?

"Use this whenever someone asks for an independent, local or non-chain business, or wants to support small businesses" gives a clear triggering condition. What is missing is the inverse: when not to use it, and whether to reach for suggest_independent_business or check_business_independence instead.

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

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive write with idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful process detail: suggestions are checked automatically and reviewed before being listed, and the business must not already be listed. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or duplicate handling beyond the idempotency hint.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the eligibility and review process. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 suggestion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to submit, what evidence is required, and that the suggestion is reviewed rather than immediately published. It could say more about expected confirmation or invalid/duplicate submissions, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds an important cross-field requirement not encoded in the required list: the business must have its own website, a Facebook/Instagram page, or a phone number. That clarifies how the optional contact fields should be populated, though name, town, trade, and reason are left to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest an independent business that Independents Only doesn't list yet.' The 'doesn't list yet' scope also distinguishes it from search/list siblings, and the example clarifies when an agent would have such a candidate.

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 clear usage context by saying 'for example one you found while answering' and states the minimum evidence needed: own website, Facebook/Instagram page, or phone number. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search or independence-checking tools, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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