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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'local search + business website content' without explaining whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, how it combines results, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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 a single sentence, which is concise but not effective. It sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, failing to earn its place as a useful guide. The front-loaded phrase 'Compound: local search + business website content' is not a clear action statement.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools with similar domain (local, search), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or how it differs from alternatives, providing no value for correct selection or invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (q, country, max_chars). The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to explain their roles, formats, or constraints, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 'Compound: local search + business website content' is vague and lacks a clear verb. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., search, retrieve, combine). The tool name 'place' is a noun, and the description is a label rather than a functional statement, making it difficult for an agent to understand the intended operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'local' (likely for local searches) or 'search' (general search). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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