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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description says to 'Start' a paid grid drawn from a shared daily budget and describes a run lifecycle. This is a serious contradiction: starting a paid, quota-consuming job is not a read-only/idempotent operation. Per the contradiction rule, this dimension scores 1.

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?

Every sentence carries operational value: inputs, payment/quota behavior, polling instructions, repeat condition, and caching behavior. There is no filler and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: how to start it, what happens on quota exhaustion, how to poll, when to stop polling, and when caching makes polling unnecessary. The only implicit details are the result fields pollAfterSeconds, runId, and status, but the workflow makes those clear enough to invoke 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?

The schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful relational semantics: either placeId OR businessName+city is the identifying pair, and trade is inferred when omitted. This goes beyond the schema without repeating it.

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 opens with a concrete operation: 'Start a Google Maps rank grid (49 points, 8 miles)' and names the two acceptable input modes (Place id or business name + city). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling report/audit tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: start a paid rank grid, wait pollAfterSeconds for running results, call get_audit_report with runId, repeat while status is running, and skip polling for cached completed results. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with start_audit, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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