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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial behavior: nothing saved or enriched, no emails/contacts/software returned, phones partly hidden, 20-result cap, and that no sign-in is started. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the key constraint (free sample, nothing saved) and then the routing rule. It is longer than average but nearly every clause carries operational information; the sibling comparison sentence is dense but earns its length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes both the shape and limits of the return (first page, up to 20, phones partly hidden, no emails/contacts) and the account/auth implications. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: accepted place formats and the ambiguous-shared-name behavior (picks the largest, lists the others). It does not clarify the optional country parameter's interaction further.

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 with scope: the first page (up to 20) of ONE Google Maps search for a kind of business in a place, phones partly hidden, nothing saved. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_leads and search_areas by naming both siblings and their differing behavior.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (user asks for a preview/sample, or no account connected) and when-not (search/find/pull/list businesses), with the reason: the siblings save and enrich and may trigger sign-in. The agent can route correctly without inference.

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