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

Given no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: source (OpenStreetMap), output fields, automatic geocoding, and pricing ($0.02 per call). It lacks info on rate limits or error handling, but the transparency is solid for a search tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the main action, lists key features, and includes pricing without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, and pricing. It could mention result count limits or pagination, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds significant value beyond the 100% schema coverage. It explains usage patterns (e.g., 'Pass what= plus city='), provides default radius (5000m), and gives examples for the 'what' parameter (pharmacy, plumber). This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find local businesses and places by category and location'. It lists specific examples (pharmacies, restaurants, etc.) and mentions over 40 categories. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like brand-visibility or chem-compat.

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 explains when to use the tool (location-based business search) and provides clear instructions on parameter combinations ('what= plus city= or lat=&lon= with a radius'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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