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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior: ordering by exactness then proximity, same-name disambiguation asking which place, `found: []` semantics, the ≤2.5 KB task_card payload with its fields, and the hard constraint that nearby_in_same_niche cards must never be presented as the requested business. That last point is an operational guardrail no structured field carries.

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?

Front-loads the identifying clause, then layers matching rules, ordering, disambiguation, empty-case handling, and payload in a logical sequence. It is dense and long, with some detail (two typos per word, Cyrillic transliteration, KB ceiling) that is useful but packed tightly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so well (found, task_card fields, nearby_in_same_niche). The exact envelope keys for the disambiguation response ('the answer asks which place') remain implicit, which is the only meaningful gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning beyond the schema — location affects both ordering (exactness, then radius, then nearness) and the bounds of the nearby list, and query/intent jointly determine which items and which action appear on the card. radius_miles itself is only restated as 'Default 25'.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource and an explicit scope restriction: 'The business the user NAMED, by name matching only'. The matching rules (case, punctuation, possessives, word order, partial name, two typos, Cyrillic transliteration) make it unmistakable versus search_catalog or get_business.

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?

States the selecting condition clearly — use this when the user gave a name, not a meaning — and routes onward to get_card for the full menu and to nearby_in_same_niche when found is empty. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (search_catalog, get_business) for the cases where this tool is wrong, leaving that to inference.

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