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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions data source fallback behavior but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens on no results. The output schema exists but isn't referenced. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Extremely concise, single sentence. Front-loaded with purpose, then data source detail. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured with separate sentences, but very efficient.

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?

Despite having output schema, the description lacks details on limit parameter pagination behavior and state usage. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description insufficiently covers all aspects, though it adds fallback context.

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 0%. Description explains niche and city (used for searching) but does not define state or limit parameters. Without schema descriptions, the tool name alone provides minimal parameter guidance. Insufficient compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 clearly states 'Find local businesses by niche + city', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_website and get_business_details, which have different purposes.

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?

Description provides context on data sources (Yelp-backed with OSM fallback) and implies this tool is for general business search, while siblings are for specific tasks like auditing or details. However, lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.

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