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.