search_businesses

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, result variability, pagination quirks) beyond what the schema and annotations convey, but does not contradict them.

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loads the main action, and every sentence is informative. No redundancy or filler.

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 11-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately summarizes the tool's capabilities and constraints. It misses stating the return format, but no output schema exists, so some inference is needed. However, the overall context is sufficient 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only summarizes available filter types (free-text, geo, categories, price, open-now, pagination) without adding new semantic meaning beyond the detailed schema descriptions for each parameter.

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 'Search Yelp for businesses matching a term, location, or both' with a clear verb+resource. Mentions discovering restaurants, services, shops. Does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like find_business_by_phone or get_business, but the sibling names are self-explanatory and this tool's purpose is clear.

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?

Provides context: 'Use when the user wants to discover restaurants, services, or shops.' Also notes requirement for location or lat/lng and lists supported features. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings.

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