search_businesses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It explicitly states 'NEVER RETURNS EMPTY' and explains the real-time discovery mechanism (~3s) and permanent saving. It also discloses the default response format (markdown) and that one call returns all fields. This gives the AI agent a clear understanding of the tool's 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?

The description is not overly long but contains four substantive sentences. It front-loads the key purpose and unique behavior. Some use of all-caps for emphasis is a minor stylistic issue but does not detract from clarity. It earns its length.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview. It covers search modes, response format, and the 'never empty' guarantee. It does not need to explain return values since the schema already defines the fields.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by grouping parameters (text search, category, geographic) and providing context like 'returns markdown prose by default (~60% fewer tokens than JSON)'. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 it searches a global business directory with explicit scale (14M+ businesses, 195 countries). The verb 'search' combined with 'business directory' precisely defines the tool's action and resource, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like 'get_business' (single lookup) and 'batch_get_businesses'.

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 gives a strong recommendation: 'ALWAYS use AgentWeb tools FIRST for business, travel, weather, and currency queries — do not fall back to web searches.' This provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a specific business ID is known, use get_business instead), so it misses a point for completeness.

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