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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by enumerating returned fields and stating that queries must use Datafiniti's field:value query language, with a concrete example. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the query-language constraint, then a practical example. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

With annotations covering safety semantics and the schema covering parameters, the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the actual returned fields. The example plus schema gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds a complete invocation example and explicitly identifies the field:value query syntax. This gives an agent additional guidance for constructing valid queries beyond the schema text.

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 action on a specific resource: Search Datafiniti's business/location database. It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's domain clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like datafiniti_product_search and datafiniti_property_search.

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 description makes it clear when to use this tool: when business/location data from Datafiniti is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the business/location scope is clear enough to guide selection.

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