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

Annotations flag a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation; the description explains why by disclosing that findings also refresh ShearQuery's directory, and it adds a concrete rate limit (5 per agency per 24 hours) and an authorization gate. That is real behavioral context the agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the eligibility gate and the operation, then the output fields, then the rate cap and side effect. No filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and mentioning the stored-data comparison. The only remaining gap is that it does not explain the shape of the comparison result (e.g. what a mismatch looks like) or what a failed lookup returns.

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 0% on the single 'prospect' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the argument identifies a business but never states the expected form (name, ID, URL, place reference), leaving the agent to guess how to format the input.

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 — look a business up on Google live — and enumerates exactly what is returned (rating, review count, hours, website, phone, open status) plus the comparison against ShearQuery's stored data. This clearly separates it from sibling readers like prospect_details or my_prospects.

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 an explicit precondition ('For an APPROVED agency') and a clear targeting rule ('use it on businesses about to be pitched'), plus the 5-per-24h cap that constrains usage. It never names an alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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