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

Despite annotations (destructiveHint true, readOnly false, openWorld true), the description discloses the token cost model, that existing leads are free, the background enrichment (~2 min for 20) with its outputs, and the return shape (Maps listing + search_id). This is rich context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence, then alternatives, cost, enrichment, and next steps. It is dense but every sentence carries actionable info; slightly long but not padded.

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, but the description explains return values (Maps listing, search_id), the enrichment payload, cost implications, and the required follow-up call. An agent can invoke correctly and know what to do next.

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 the schema carries parameter syntax. The description still adds meaning: pages are 'about 20 per page' and the query is a 'city centre' scoped search, reinforcing the pages and scope semantics. Marginal extra value, so a 4.

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 (Search) and resource (ONE city / businesses) and the scope (city centre, 1-5 pages). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_areas, naming the sibling and the volume difference.

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 ('quick search, a page of results or one town') and when-to-use-otherwise ('for a whole city or several, use search_areas'), plus the follow-up call list_results with its wait_seconds. Nothing is left to inference.

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