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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds entitlement context ('Paid plans') that annotations cannot express, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about what the lookup returns (candidate list? single match?) or how ambiguous name/city matches behave, which matters for a read that feeds a write.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no padding. The trailing 'Paid plans.' is abrupt but still earns its place by flagging an entitlement constraint.

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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent is left guessing what a successful result looks like and whether it yields an identifier usable by add_review_source — a gap given the stated workflow dependency.

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% and the schema already explains both the combined name+city query format and the country code with an example. The description's 'by its name and city' merely restates the query parameter, adding no new detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (finds a business on Google Maps) plus the scoping inputs (name and city), and names the sibling workflow it feeds (add_review_source with type google). An agent can distinguish it from add_review or get_review_source without opening a 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?

Explicitly ties the tool to a downstream step: use it to locate a business for add_review_source with type google. It gives clear triggering context but no when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if the business already exists as a review source, or if it is not on Google).

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