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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context beyond those: it reveals that results include a human-verification date and that the directory is hand-verified, which signals data-quality expectations without contradicting 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?

The description is two effective sentences: it front-loads the core purpose and scope, then lists return fields and the distinguishing value proposition. Nothing is redundant, and the Google Places contrast earns its place by clarifying when the tool is useful.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool, it is reasonably complete: it names the source directory, geographic focus, return fields, and the unique verification-date feature. It could be more complete by explicitly routing users to buscar_medico for medical-provider queries, but the schema and annotations cover most invocation needs.

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 input schema already documents 'consulta', 'limite', and 'municipio'. The description does not add operational semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Busca' and names the resource: local businesses and services of Puerto Rico in the hand-verified directory of mapadecaborojo.com. It also states what is returned, making the tool's scope immediately understandable and distinguishable from siblings like buscar_medico.

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 gives clear context: use this for local PR business/service searches, especially in Cabo Rojo and the west, when verified human-checked data matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use case is strongly implied.

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