state_businesses

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds a brief scope ('may include counts, registrations, licenses, industry breakdowns') but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior, return format, or whether data is aggregated. With annotations covering safety, the added value is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, direct, and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides useful categories without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only query tool with 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations is mostly complete. However, the phrase 'May include' is vague about whether results are individual records or aggregates, and the description does not explain how to choose between q and where filters. This leaves some ambiguity about the exact return shape.

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%, with all four parameters (q, limit, state, where) already described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. The 'may include' list refers to output fields, not parameters.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('business data for a US state'), and the 'may include' list (counts, registrations, licenses, industry breakdowns) distinguishes it from sibling state_* tools focused on crime, health, education, etc. This is specific and unambiguous.

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: use when business data for a US state is needed. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., state_query or other state_* tools) or exclusions (e.g., 'for crime data use state_crime'), leaving the agent to infer the tool's role among many siblings.

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