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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does well: discloses cost (3 credits), that failed calls are refunded, the return shape (full listing fields), and that pagination exists via next_cursor. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or that the 'fresh' parameter is unavailable on trial credits (that's in the schema, but the description could reinforce it). Missing some behavioral context for a 9-param, no-annotation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by return shape and pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers what the tool does, how to use it vs a sibling, what it returns, and cost/refund behavior. However, it doesn't mention pagination mechanics in detail (though the schema does), and doesn't cover authentication or rate limits. Given the richness of the schema, this is adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description adds context about the return shape and references next_cursor, but provides no additional parameter meaning (e.g., how query interacts with lat/lng, how country/language bias works). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (find) and resource (businesses and places on Google Maps) with the query mechanism. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling google-maps/place (now get_place) by noting 'use google-maps/place when you already have a place_id.' An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 a clear use case ('build a list of businesses in an area') and names when to use the alternative (google-maps/place with a place_id). Doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you already have a place_id you should use the other), though that is implied. Good routing guidance overall.

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