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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses cost and payment mechanics ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), that failed calls are free, that only public listings are covered, and a licensing constraint on resale. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and return fields, then scope limits, then pricing. It is tight overall, though the pricing/payment clause is dense and slightly crowds out more useful query-syntax guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still gives a compact field summary, and it adds the cost, scope, and legal caveats an agent needs before calling. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, with both 'q' (2–60 chars) and 'limit' (1–15, default 10) fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by business name and adds nothing on input formatting or the effect of limit, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Better Business Bureau search (bbb.org public search JSON): finds businesses by name' — and enumerates the returned attributes (city, state, category, BBB rating, membership flag, profile URL). The named source domain plus the explicit 'no complaint details' boundary clearly separates it from siblings like b2b_trustpilot_reviews or b2b_yellowpages.

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?

'Public listings only; no complaint details' tells the agent when this source is not the right one (e.g., for reviews or complaints), which is a genuine routing signal. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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