yelp_search_businesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or what kind of business data is returned, so it misses the opportunity to supplement structured metadata.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. Brevity here does not compensate for missing operational detail.

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 search tool with seven undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of search behavior or result format, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing parameter semantics.

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?

The schema has seven parameters with 0% description coverage, including term, location, latitude/longitude, categories, and api_key. The description mentions none of them, so an agent cannot tell how to formulate a search or which parameter combinations are valid.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: searching for businesses on Yelp. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like yelp_get_business, yelp_autocomplete, or yelp_search_events, but the core action is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search tool versus yelp_autocomplete (query suggestions) or yelp_get_business (lookup by ID). The description leaves all routing decisions to inference.

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