yelp_business_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the listed outputs tell the agent what kind of data to expect, but the description does not mention access requirements, rate limits, or any non-obvious constraints. It is adequate for a simple search tool, but not richly transparent.

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?

One short sentence conveys the core action, resource, and returned data fields with no fluff. The most useful information is front-loaded and 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?

The output schema exists and all parameters are documented, so invocation details are covered. However, the description lacks any mention of when to choose this tool over closely related siblings like 'yelp_business_reviews' or 'gbp_insights'. For a research tool among many alternatives, a bit more orientation would make it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning about term, location, limit, or format, but it does not need to since the schema handles that burden. It earns the baseline score of 3.

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 names the action ('Search') and resource ('Yelp businesses'), and adds the output fields: ratings, review counts, categories, and pricing. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'yelp_business_reviews', but the 'business search' wording versus 'reviews' makes the primary purpose fairly distinguishable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as yelp_business_reviews, gbp_insights, or other research tools. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or scenarios provided, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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