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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (slug plus actions) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place, efficiently conveying purpose, parameters, and return value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (slug plus actions) and its purpose. It could mention pagination or result size limits, but overall it is sufficient for a read-only search tool with three optional parameters.

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 only 33% (only query has an example). The description adds meaning by clarifying that query, category, and city are filters that can be combined ('and/or'), and that query is free-text. However, it does not elaborate on valid category or city formats.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and clearly states the resource 'businesses on Agoria' with search criteria (query, category, city). It also specifies the return value (slug and actions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_business or search_market.

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 implies usage for finding businesses to take action on, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as search_market or get_business. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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