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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a scope constraint (only real, published AgentPorts) and exact capability filtering, but does not describe result shape or pagination, so value beyond annotations is moderate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, scope, and search dimensions are all stated efficiently, and every phrase carries meaning.

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 search tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It gives the search concept but omits return-format expectations and the mechanics of combining location filters, so an agent would need schema details or examples for full confidence.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by grouping parameters into 'natural-language need,' 'location,' and 'capability keys.' However, it does not explain individual location options (city, region, lat/lon, radius, country) or the limit parameter, leaving a meaningful semantic gap.

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 action ('Find'), a concrete resource ('real businesses with published AgentPorts'), and the search dimensions: natural-language need, location, and capability keys. This clearly distinguishes it from business.get (retrieval by ID) and capability.resolve (capability lookup).

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 a clear use context: discovery of businesses by need, place, and capability filters. It does not explicitly state when to prefer business.get or capability.resolve, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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