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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: asynchronous processing (immediate first batch with background verification), the verification methods (SMTP email check, phone line type + carrier), and the cost implication ('Spends 1 lead per result'). This is highly valuable contextual information that the agent could not infer from the schema or basic annotations.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and gives an example. The following sentences efficiently deliver critical details (async behavior, verification, cost, and polling instruction) without any redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and parameter schema coverage is 100%, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, asynchrony, verification, cost, and the next step (poll get_search_results). No critical gaps are apparent for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (query, location, location_code) with 100% coverage, providing the baseline. The description adds a concrete example ('electrician', 'Austin, TX') and reinforces the 'niche + city' relationship, but does not introduce new parameter meanings beyond what the schema already states.

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 function with a specific verb ('Run a live search'), a resource ('local businesses'), and a scope ('by niche + city'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_search_results and list_searches by defining its role as the search initiator and explicitly referencing the polling workflow.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for starting a live search and returning a search_id for subsequent polling. It explicitly names the companion tool (get_search_results) and instructs the agent to poll until completed, which implies this tool is used for initiating rather than retrieving results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like query_leads.

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