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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read against an open dataset. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no result coverage, geographic scope limits, or pagination notes), so with annotations carrying the load a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and search dimensions front-loaded. No waste, though it is arguably under-specified rather than richly 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 tool is simple and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the description leaves the ambiguity with bbb_category and bbb_business unresolved and offers no pagination or scope guidance.

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 query, location, and page are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the query/location intent but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (BBB businesses) plus the search dimensions (name/category and location). It is clearly distinguishable from detail siblings like bbb_business or bbb_scamtracker_search, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search by name/category and location' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as bbb_business (detail) or bbb_category (category browsing), which overlap with the 'category' search path described here.

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