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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the ranking cap of five results, catalog grounding, and the exact return payload (identifiers, names, scores, match evidence). This goes beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and limitation, then lists the return contents. Every sentence adds value without repeating schema details.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers scope, ranking limit, and return payload. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools.

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?

The tenant parameter is already well documented in the schema, and the description adds only modest meaning for the query parameter by calling it 'short free-text query' and tying it to ranking. With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully explain parameter semantics on its own.

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 identifies a specific action — ranking services against a free-text query — and names the resource (services in one published Kirah business catalog) and output components. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search/list tools.

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 tool's use case is implied through the phrasing 'ranks up to five services against a short free-text query,' which suggests free-text discovery rather than listing or availability checks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like list_services, find_available_services, or search_businesses.

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