yelp_search: GET /

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and covers core behavior: keyword/location search, optional map-bounded radius, domain targeting, offset-based pagination, and a ranked list of businesses with specific fields. It does not mention rate limits or response envelope details, but the disclosed behavior is solid for a GET 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 concise, front-loaded with the operation, and uses every sentence for meaningful detail. The opening line is slightly redundant with the title, but the rest of the description is tightly written and well organized.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and downstream usage. It also explains pagination and domain targeting. It is missing notes on authentication, rate limits, or explicit sibling routing, but it gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 minor framing around `l` as map-bounded radius and `start` as pagination offset, but the schema already documents these parameters. It does not significantly deepen parameter understanding beyond structured definitions.

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?

Description identifies a specific operation: Yelp business search by keyword and location. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (place details, reviews) and lists concrete result contents. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 explicitly says to use search results and then pass returned aliases to the Yelp Place endpoint for full details, and gives use cases like local-discovery UIs and market-share datasets. It does not explicitly mention when to use Reviews or state exclusions, but the intended placement in the workflow is clear.

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