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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the supply network is mostly sample data, [DEMO] entries must be checked via is_demo, and availability_window is accepted but NOT APPLIED, with the response indicating availability_window_applied false. It also notes cost and latency.

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 long but well-structured, front-loaded with purpose and critical warnings, followed by examples, usage guidance, and constraints. Every section earns its place, especially the sample-data warning and the availability_window caveat.

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 tool with nested objects, no output schema, and several behavioral traps, the description is nearly complete: it covers inputs, result caveats, when to use, when not to use, follow-up routing, and key output fields like is_demo and availability_window_applied. The only minor gap is a full response field list, which is not essential 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 only 50%, so the description compensates with concrete query-to-parameter examples for vertical, location, and capability, and it explicitly warns about the non-applied availability_window. Price_band and max_results/radius are less detailed, though their schema names and defaults make them reasonably self-explanatory.

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 states a clear action—'return ranked candidate businesses from our supply network'—with explicit search criteria and a defined result type. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by saying when it should not be used, e.g., when a verified SMB identifier already exists.

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?

The WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections explicitly name alternatives: call this before schedule_appointment or send_message when no specific SMB is known, and do not use it as a general directory or when a verified SMB is already in hand. It also restricts valid verticals, which prevents misuse.

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