bbb_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context: 'Credential-free public Better Business Bureau data' discloses that no auth is needed, and listing the returned fields clarifies the output shape. However, it does not disclose result limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema's default-1 page, rate limits, or how query matching behaves (exact vs fuzzy).

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 with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the return payload in the second, and the auth/access note in the third. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 two-required-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, how it is scoped, what fields come back, and that no credentials are needed. Minor gaps remain — pagination/result-cap details and explicit routing between the many BBB sibling tools — but nothing that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 reinforces the schema by connecting 'query' to 'name or category' and 'location' to 'near a location', which adds mild semantic glue. It provides no new syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Better Business Bureau businesses' via 'bbb.org', scoped by name or category near a location. It also enumerates the return fields (rating, accreditation, categories, service areas, contact info, profile URL), making its function concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like bbb_business (single-business lookup) or datasets_bbb_businesses_search, so it misses the full sibling-distinction bar.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: searching for BBB businesses by name/category near a location. The description never states when to prefer this tool over bbb_business, bbb_business_reviews, or datasets_bbb_businesses_search, nor does it give any 'use instead' exclusions. An agent can infer the right context from the search semantics, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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