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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, openWorld), and the description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations cannot: 15 results per page, presence of total_pages and has_more, and the hard 15-page server cap that drives the results_capped signal. This is exactly the kind of limit disclosure the agent needs.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, pagination/limit mechanics, and sibling routing. The core capability is front-loaded.

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 12-param paginated search with an output schema and annotations, the description covers capability, pagination limits, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; return-value details are covered by the output schema.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining page size (15 per page) and the relationship between the page parameter and the 15-page cap. It doesn't add syntax for the filter params (rating, category_id, state), which the schema already documents.

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), resource (BBB business records), and scope (by name or category near a location), plus what the results contain (rating, accreditation, contact details). An agent can immediately tell this apart from bbb_category and bbb_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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use bbb_category to browse category taxonomy or bbb_business for one business profile.' It also gives a conditional action rule: when results_capped is true, narrow 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.