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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses the cost model (billed per results page and per detail fetched), an auth prerequisite (needs a free SnoopScan key), a hard cap (up to 20 a call), and that includeDetails toggles phone/website in the output. Annotations only cover the safety profile, so this adds real invocation-level context.

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-loaded with the query example, then output, cost and alternative routing in tight sentences. No filler; every clause delivers actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it usefully names the key fields. Cost and auth are covered. Minor gap: the accepted form of `location` (city string vs coordinates) is left inferential.

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 0%, so the description carries the load: it explains query via the example, location via 'in "Leeds"', and includeDetails by naming what it adds. The limit parameter is only loosely covered ('up to 20 a call'), which does not clarify its default of 10 or its relationship to the cap.

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 (Google Maps businesses) and disambiguates from the sibling findLeads. The concrete example '"plumbers" in "Leeds"' makes the intended input shape immediately obvious to an agent.

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 routes the agent: use this for a Maps-style search, use `findLeads` when a whole list with emails, owners and several sources is needed. The selecting condition is stated, not implied.

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