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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: financials beyond the search page are excluded, and pricing is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 with failed calls free. The per-call cost and charge-on-success rule are exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations can't convey.

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?

Content is front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by exclusions and pricing. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the pricing sentence is slightly tangential to selection but still relevant.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return shapes, and it correctly focuses on scope, exclusions, and cost. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly; only explicit usage routing to alternatives 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 parameters already documented (limit 1-50, default 20; state name format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource (businesses for sale on BizQuest) and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, asking price, location, image, URL), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also scopes the source (public search pages, all listings or a US state). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from a sibling marketplace tool, but none in the list is a close competitor.

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?

Scoping is implied by 'all listings, or a US state', and the caveat that off-page financials are excluded hints at when the tool is insufficient. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative tool for deeper financial data.

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