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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description isn't needed for the safety profile. It adds meaningful context the annotations lack: a per-record credit cost with a minimum of 2 and the guidance to keep page_size minimal. It doesn't discuss pagination caps or rate limits, but the cost model is a genuine value-add.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned data, then filters, then cost and routing. Dense but earns its place; the filter enumeration is slightly redundant against the schema.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, filterability, cost, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this 17-param, zero-required search correctly is missing.

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% with rich per-parameter descriptions, so the schema carries the semantics. The description restates that filtering works by name, location, rating, accreditation, has_alerts, alert_title, and min_complaints, which overlaps what the schema already documents rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (stored BBB businesses dataset) and enumerates the salient returned fields (grade, accreditation, category, contact info, complaint/review counts, alerts). It also names the sibling tools it is not (item, facets), so the agent can route without opening a 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 states when to use alternatives: datasets_bbb_businesses_item for one record and datasets_bbb_businesses_facets for filter counts, plus the credit-cost condition that governs page_size. Both Usage and Alternatives are covered.

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