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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own, and it does well: it explicitly states that name, company, email, phone, and address are never returned. This is a major behavioral constraint not visible in the input schema. It stops short of describing sampling/ordering behavior or service limits, but the key risk is clearly disclosed.

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 two efficient sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the critical contact-detail exclusion placed immediately after. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: it returns a sample, indicates the kinds of fields included, and clearly states what it will never return. It could add an explicit note about non-exhaustive sampling or point to count_businesses for totals, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions industry and location as output content but adds no extra semantics to city, state, limit, or industry beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Return a sample of matching businesses,' and names the key output dimensions (industry, location, data-quality signals). It also draws a clear line from sibling count/list tools by emphasizing that this returns a sample, not a count or an industry list.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool to see what businesses exist and how reachable they are, not to obtain contact information. The 'not who to call' exclusion is explicit, but it does not name sibling alternatives such as count_businesses or list_industries, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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