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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the directory is public, that only top matches are returned, and lists the returned fields including the canonical page URL. It does not discuss rate limits, result limits, or failure behavior, but the disclosed information is meaningful and accurately reflects the tool's read-only search nature.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the examples at the end clarify query formulation without bloating the text.

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 description is complete enough for a search tool: it explains what is searched, what is returned, and how to construct queries. There is no output schema, so the explicit mention of return fields is valuable. It could be slightly stronger with a note about limiting results or differentiating from sibling tools.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by advising the agent to use the customer's own natural-language wording and by showing how location, service, and language can be embedded in the query text, which helps with using the query parameter effectively.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Laspi Pro public business directory and returns matching business entries, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It is distinct from the sibling get_business by implication (search vs. retrieval), but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from ask_directory.

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?

The description gives clear guidance on how to formulate queries, including concrete examples like 'manicure in Alicante' and 'online QA course in Russian.' However, it does not explain when to prefer search_businesses over the sibling tools ask_directory or get_business.

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