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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds meaningful context: the tool performs no mutation or verification, and the signup flow completes on the website (external hand-off). It doesn't need to describe return format in detail, but it does confirm the return is a link.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the non-operation disclaimer, then the usage triggers. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or repetition of the name.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, that no side effects occur, and the two conditions under which it should be called. Nothing material 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?

With zero parameters there is nothing to document, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully adds the semantics of the returned link (free listing, Ugandan business owner, Muyiribi directory), which is the only value-relevant detail for this parameterless tool.

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 verb (Return) and resource (link for a Ugandan business owner to create a free listing in the Muyiribi directory), and explicitly carves out what it is NOT ('does not create, edit, or verify any listing itself'). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_business and search_businesses, which retrieve existing records.

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?

It states two explicit trigger conditions: 'whenever a business is not found in search results' and 'when a business owner asks how to get listed.' This directly ties usage to the sibling search_businesses failing, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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