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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world reach are covered; the description's "Read-only" is largely redundant. It does add genuinely new behavior beyond annotations: a hard cap of 5 results, the returned field set, the country scoping of results, and the absence of opening hours. With no output schema, that return-shape disclosure is the main contribution, but gaps remain (no-results behavior, latency, whether queries outside the user's country fail or just return nothing).

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?

Two dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded, followed by caveats. Minor waste: "Read-only" duplicates the annotation, and the closing business-type list ("restaurant, dentist, clinic, plumber, salon or pharmacy") restates the earlier pharmacy example and could be trimmed.

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?

With a single parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential contract: how to phrase the query, what fields return, the 5-result cap, and the two main scope exclusions. It falls short only on edge behavior such as empty results or out-of-country queries, which an agent would likely want to know before promising an answer.

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% and the schema example already shows the query format, so much of the description's example is duplication. The added meaning is the decomposition of query into "what" and "where" and the constraint that results are limited to the user's own country, implying the agent should not try to encode cross-country location targeting.

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 specific verb and resource ("Finds businesses"), the two query dimensions ("by what and where"), and what comes back ("up to 5 Google Maps listings with name, address, phone number and rating"). It also draws a boundary against siblings by excluding people and company helplines, which implicitly separates it from find_contact and find_customer_care.

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?

Gives a concrete usage pattern ("pharmacy near Indiranagar") plus explicit negative scope: no current opening hours, no company helplines, no people. That tells the agent when to reach for a different tool without naming it, but it never states the positive precondition, e.g. that a location anchor inside the user's country is required.

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