yelp_business_reviews_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the unconventional backend ('via Yelp's real Android app backend'), the auth requirements (credential-free), and the return format (highlighted excerpt per match). It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but it adds significant transparency for a read-only search tool.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, method, and credential requirements.

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 the low complexity (2 params) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (highlighted excerpt) and access requirements. It could mention behavior when no matches are found, but for a simple search tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, providing clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'term'. The description adds only marginal context (like returning a highlighted excerpt) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search Yelp business reviews by keyword' and specifies the exact resource (a Yelp business's reviews). It differentiates from sibling tools like yelp_business_reviews by focusing on keyword search and highlighting per match, making it distinct.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool—when you need to search reviews by a keyword—but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like yelp_business_reviews would be used for unfiltered listings, but this is not called out, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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