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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses the scraping behavior, output fields, and default max_results. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true) and openWorldHint (true). The description does not contradict annotations and explains what the tool does. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits or pagination.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear bullet list of arguments. Each sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture of expected output and parameters. It covers the core functionality. However, it could mention error handling or result variability (though openWorldHint partially covers that). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a lead generation tool.

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 fully compensates by describing each parameter with concrete examples (e.g., 'dentist', 'Austin', 'TX') and default value for max_results. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: generating B2B leads by scraping Google Maps businesses with contact info. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and resource 'Google Maps businesses', and lists the output fields (names, addresses, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_local_businesses' which likely provides similar data but without the lead generation focus.

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?

The description implicitly suggests use for lead generation but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance on how this tool differs from 'google-maps__search_local_businesses', which is a potential alternative.

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