yelp_search: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description focuses on functionality but lacks transparency about side effects or constraints.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences, efficiently covering purpose, parameters, and output usage. It front-loads the main action and is free of redundant language, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 details the return fields (alias/ID, name, categories, rating, etc.) and explains how the output can be used. All five parameters are covered in context, making the tool understandable for an agent.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the format of the `l` parameter (map-bounded radius example) and explaining offset-based pagination for `start`. This supplements the schema definitions meaningfully.

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 'Get Yelp Search Results' and explains it performs a business search by keyword and location with optional parameters. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `hasdata_yelp_place_getPlaceDetails` by explicitly mentioning that returned aliases can be used as input to that endpoint.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'to power local-discovery UIs, or to build market-share/competitor datasets', and directs users to the Yelp Place endpoint for full details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe alternatives among siblings.

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