2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no rate limits, no cost model, no pagination semantics, no auth requirements. The only behavioral detail (Advanced option costs 2 requests) lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

It is short, but that reflects under-specification rather than disciplined brevity. A single throwaway sentence is not an appropriately sized definition for a 5-parameter tool.

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 5 parameters, two required, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should carry substantial context. One vague sentence leaves an agent unable to determine what the tool returns or how it differs from the other Yelp-related siblings.

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% and every parameter (limit, offset, location, search_term, business_details_type) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'just like on Yelp', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 name '_2' and title '2' convey nothing, and the description only analogizes to yelp.com's search box. It implies a business search of some kind, but never states the verb+resource (e.g. 'search Yelp businesses by term and location') or distinguishes itself from siblings like business_details or reviews.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (business_details, reviews, get_menus_beta) that an agent must choose between. The Yelp-analogy line is a stylistic hint, not routing guidance.

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