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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the data is public, owner contact and personal fields are intentionally excluded, and pricing is charged only on successful calls. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but the output schema exists and the added behavioral details are useful.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and source appear first, followed by privacy and pricing details. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: data source, search basis, return fields, privacy exclusions, and payment model. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing further explanation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents q and limit thoroughly. The description adds that q matches formal or trade names, which is a slight semantic enrichment, but it does not expand on limit behavior beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it searches vendors in the NYC Small Business Services certified business list and states the returned fields. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic business directories, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as b2b_nyc_business_licenses or b2b_ny_business_entity.

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 description implies that this is a name-search tool for certified NYC businesses, but it does not say when to use it instead of related tools like NYC business licenses or NY business entity search. It also gives no explicit exclusions or selection guidance beyond the query being by formal or trade name.

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