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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the return payload (JSON-LD, script tag, issues to fix) and that no API key is needed. It omits a significant behavioral fact baked into the schema: several parameters (rating, reviews, specialHours) are silently omitted from free output, which materially affects caller expectations.

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 tight sentences: the core action first, then the returned artifacts and the no-key reassurance. Zero waste and well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return shape, which is important. But for a 32-parameter tool with heavy nesting and paywalled-field behavior, it should note the free-tier omissions and give at least minimal guidance on the required name field and businessType selection.

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?

With 32 parameters and only 34% schema description coverage, the description carries substantial compensating burden but adds no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions name being the sole required field, businessType defaults, or the geo/address/openingHours conventions. It leaves the agent to reverse-engineer usage entirely from a partially documented schema.

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+resource ('Generate LocalBusiness JSON-LD') plus a secondary action ('validate it against Google's rich result rules'), and the mention of validation distinguishes it from the sibling validate_schema which only validates an existing page/schema. An agent can tell this is a generation-plus-validation tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'from business details' and the validation mention, and the schema references '/business-types' (pointing at list_business_types). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs validate_page/validate_schema/run_health_check, and no stated prerequisite about needing a location/client first.

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