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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call runs asynchronously for 2-5 minutes (an agent must not expect inline results), that it is charged per lead delivered and never for leads it cannot find, and that it requires a free SnoopScan key. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint.

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 purpose, then walks parameters in a logical order, then ends with the async/cost/auth constraints. Slightly dense with backticked identifiers and one stray blank line, but no sentence is wasted.

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 9-parameter async tool with an output schema, the agent gets the discovery semantics, the polling handoff to leadsStatus, the cost model, and the auth requirement. The only real shortfall is the three undocumented parameters (limit, sources, requireWebsite), whose effect on results the agent must guess.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it gives real semantics for who, where, country (ISO code, inferred from where when omitted), contacts, roles, and questions (up to three, answered from each business's own site with a quoted line and page). It leaves limit, sources, and requireWebsite undocumented, which is a genuine but partial gap.

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 ('Find businesses by what they do and where') plus what each result carries (reachability, contacts, named roles, answered questions). It is much clearer than a bare 'find' tool, but it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent sibling findContacts, which an agent could easily reach for instead.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the parameter semantics (business discovery by trade + location with optional enrichment), and it explicitly routes the follow-up step to leadsStatus with the job id. However there is no when-not guidance and no comparison against findContacts, searchPlaces, or company, so sibling selection 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.