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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: a mandatory prerequisite (must obtain a locality from the customer rather than calling speculatively) and the guarantee that 'results already satisfy distance, budget, and open-now constraints,' which tells the agent not to post-filter. Return shape and limits are not described, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the operational prerequisite follows immediately, and the closing sentence preempts redundant client-side filtering. Every sentence changes agent behavior.

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?

There is no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, so the description has to do more than one short constraint sentence for a 9-parameter tool. It resolves the biggest ambiguity (locality is required in spirit even though the schema marks nothing required) but leaves the return shape, result count behavior, and most parameter roles unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for 9 parameters. It meaningfully covers only locality (a 'Chennai area') and category ('when it is clear'), and only implicitly gestures at radius_km, max_price_inr, and open_now through the constraint sentence. lat, lng, limit, and query are never explained, leaving more than half the surface undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Find and rank local shops in Chennai for a customer request.' That is far more concrete than a generic search, and the Chennai framing separates it from catalog siblings like get_catalog and search_catalog. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling it is distinct from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives genuine when-to-use direction: always supply locality when the customer states their location, and ask for a Chennai area before calling if they haven't. It also says to use category 'when it is clear.' No alternative tools are named and no exclusion conditions are given, so it is clear context without the explicit routing that a 5 requires.

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