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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is already clear. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (business name, address, rating, review count, phone, website, category, open/closed status), which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return data, and use cases. No redundant wording or filler; information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers purpose, return data, and use cases, which is suitable for a search tool with 3 params and no output schema. Minor gap: location is optional in the schema but the description implies both query and location are needed, and max_results behavior isn't discussed but is in the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters fully documented with examples and defaults. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly states 'Search Google Maps for local businesses matching a query and location', identifying the exact verb and resource. It also enumerates the return data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_leads and validate_emails.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'restaurant discovery, service provider lookup, or competitive local analysis'. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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