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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the source (yellowpages.com public search via residential proxy), pagination caps (30 per page, pages 1-10), and a precise pricing/payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc; failures not charged). This is exactly the kind of cost, auth, and sourcing context an agent needs before invoking.

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 front-loaded with the resource and return fields, followed by operational details and pricing. It is a dense but efficient two-sentence block; the long field list is justified because it tells the agent what data is available, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations, the description covers the essential missing context: geography, source, pagination ceiling, and cost/payment. It does not discuss rate limits or behavior when no results are found, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 the parameters are already documented, but the description adds a constraint not present in the schema: a maximum of 30 results per page. It also restates the page range in prose, adding mild redundancy rather than new semantics beyond that cap.

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 the resource (Yellow Pages US business listings), the query inputs (search term and location), and the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly differentiates itself from generic directory siblings by naming the yellowpages.com source, but does not explicitly contrast with b2b_manta, b2b_angies_list, b2b_bbb, or b2b_google_maps.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many close sibling directories. The only implied guidance is that this is for US business searches, which many siblings also cover.

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