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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the credit cost and the returned fields (rating, scores, address, phone, coordinates), which is genuine behavioral context. It omits pagination behavior for the limit parameter, whether all filters combine or AND, and any coverage/jurisdiction note (FSA implies UK only, which is left implicit).

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the source and resource followed by filters, returns, and cost. Every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter, all-optional search with no output schema, the description usefully substitutes for the missing return documentation by listing what comes back and noting the cost. Gaps remain around how the ID-based filters are sourced and whether filters combine, but nothing critical to invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited meaning beyond the schema: it signals that 'radius' works together with coordinates and that 'rating' and 'council' map to specific filters, but it does not explain the rating code format or how businessTypeId/localAuthorityId values are obtained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('search food businesses') and enumerates the filter dimensions (name, address, council, type, rating, radius), which is enough to separate it from siblings like food_alerts or cqc_search. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not, so it does not reach the top band.

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?

Listing the searchable filter dimensions implicitly tells an agent how the tool is used, but there is no statement of when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., food_alerts for recalls) and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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