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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth model (no login, no Google Maps API key), the asynchronous/pending-first behavior, and the exact output fields. It omits rate limits, pagination beyond maxResults, and any failure/empty-result semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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: purpose and scope first, then output fields, then the async/polling caveat. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the operational warning is placed where an agent will see it before invoking.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing every returned field (name, category, address, phone, website, rating, review count, hours, coordinates). Combined with the async hand-off to get_run_results and the no-auth note, an agent has everything needed to call and collect results correctly.

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 query, location, and maxResults are already fully documented with examples and a default. The description's phrase 'by keyword and location' adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 business listings') scoped by keyword and location, which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_zillow, search_realtor, and search_indiamart_suppliers. The return-field list further confirms what kind of data this tool produces.

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 tells the agent the preconditions (no login, no API key) and the follow-up workflow ('Usually returns pending first; collect with get_run_results'), naming the sibling to use. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus other business-listing searches, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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