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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical behavior beyond them: coverage is sampled (unavailable reviews never mean no problems), a five-scans-per-day rate limit, and a dependency on a configured provider for Google reviews. These are non-obvious traits that materially affect invocation.

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 three tight sentences, front-loading the primary action and purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the core function, the sampling caveat, and the operational constraints (rate limit and provider requirement). No filler.

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 six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no explanation of which parameters map to 'named business' or 'discover up to three businesses,' the description is insufficient for correct invocation. The output schema exists, so return format isn't a gap, but input semantics are entirely unaddressed. The operational constraints are helpful but don't compensate for missing parameter guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the six parameters (target, website, business, geography, reviewUrls, googlePlaceId) or how they relate to the described behavior. An agent cannot determine what to provide.

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 a specific action (scan) and resource (a named business or discover up to three businesses) for a distinct purpose (recurring complaints). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on complaints and solutions, not leads or generic research.

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 implies usage for complaint analysis but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_businesses or research_businesses. It provides caveats (coverage sampling, rate limit, provider dependency) that inform when it's applicable, but lacks explicit when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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