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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: data comes from public search pages only, financials beyond those pages are excluded, and billing is pay-per-successful-call in USDC via x402 with failed calls not charged. The remaining gap is that it doesn't mention rate limits, result volatility, or pagination behavior, but billing and data-completeness disclosure are meaningful additions.

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-loads what the tool returns and its source, then exclusions, then alternatives, then price. It is dense but nearly every clause carries selection-relevant information; the field list partially duplicates the output schema, which is the main redundancy.

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, read-only, open-world search tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers source, scope, exclusions, cost, and alternatives. Sibling coverage is sparse given roughly 75 alternatives, but the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes the all-states/one-state scope without adding format guidance; the limit range (1-50, default 20) is left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource with concrete scope: 'Businesses for sale on BizQuest' with the fields returned (title, short description, asking price, location text, image, listing URL) and the source (public search pages). An agent can distinguish this from registration/registry siblings like b2b_ny_business_entity or directory siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with a condition for each ('b2b_bbb when you need BBB search', 'b2b_booksy when you need Booksy beauty businesses') and bounds scope to all listings or a US state. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., other for-sale marketplaces), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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