Research businesses from a brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the synchronous, quick nature and the contrast with the durable asynchronous sibling, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides the expected call-time behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary use case is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative is clearly stated in the second. It is concise, structured, and every word contributes to the agent's decision.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of a detailed input schema and output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the synchronous nature and the routing to the async sibling. It does not cover pagination or output details, but those are already in the schema, and the description provides the key decision guidance 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 coverage is 100% and all seven parameters have detailed descriptions (e.g., brief example, limit bounds, fields enum). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics but reinforces that the brief is a natural-language query. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('research') and resource ('businesses'), and immediately defines the scope: a quick synchronous search from a natural-language brief. It distinguishes itself from start_lead_search by naming the alternative, making it clear this tool is for immediate results in the current call. No ambiguity.

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 'Use for a quick synchronous search when the user supplies one natural-language brief and can wait for results in the current tool call' and then explicitly routes other workflows ('durable progress, retry, export, or large agent workflows') to start_lead_search instead. This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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