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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail via "any other bookable businesses," confirming results extend beyond Neruva's own listings. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ranking, so it only modestly exceeds what the annotations already provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter guidance in a compact, scannable layout. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter notes are informally punctuated rather than tightly structured.

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 three-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema and no required inputs, the description covers the inputs adequately. It omits, however, what an unfiltered call returns (all businesses?) and never points the agent to get_business/get_business_profile for drilling into a result, which is the natural next step and a meaningful gap in a 10-tool booking suite.

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 0% – the properties carry only titles and a default of "" – so the description must carry the load, and it does. It explains all three parameters with concrete examples, and critically clarifies the AND semantics of query ("words that must all match") plus the expected granularity of locality ("a city or state"). It stops short of explaining what an empty/default value does or whether category matching is exact or fuzzy.

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 clear verb and resource: "Search Neruva's business identities (and any other bookable businesses)." The parenthetical clarifies the scope of the search space, which helps distinguish it from a single-entity lookup. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_business or get_business_profile, so the agent must infer that this is the discovery tool and those are the retrieval 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?

"All filters optional" is a genuine usage hint about how permissive the call can be, and the search framing implies you use it when you don't yet have a business ID. But the description never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative (get_business) for the known-ID case, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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