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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about pagination behavior and geographic scope (Mexico or single state). It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or return format, but the annotations lighten the burden.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place. Perfectly concise.

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?

The description covers the search scope and pagination but lacks details on output format, error cases, or limitations (e.g., max results). With no output schema, some additional context about return structure would improve completeness, but the annotations partially compensate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions page_size incorrectly (schema uses page_end) and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does confirm pagination context but adds little value.

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 clearly states the verb 'search', resource 'businesses', and scope 'by name or brand across Mexico or a single state'. It differentiates from siblings like denue_search_in_state by focusing on name-based search, but could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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 provides pagination guidance ('set page_size and page_start to walk results') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to sibling tools. The pagination advice is helpful but not comprehensive.

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