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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 15 results per page, the 15-page server cap, and how to react to results_capped. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the capping/pagination disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by pagination mechanics and the sibling routing. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key operational surprises (page size, 15-page cap, results_capped). Slightly incomplete in not clarifying how the filter params (state, category_id) must be sourced, but that lives in the schema descriptions.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters, and the description only names 'page' and references filters generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format/syntax detail.

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 and resource ('Browse BBB businesses by category and location') and explicitly carves out the scope by saying 'without a free-text query', which distinguishes it from bbb_search without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use bbb_search when you need text matching across business names or descriptions') and gives a condition. It also tells the agent what to do when results are capped ('narrow the listing with filters to reach the rest').

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