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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The real added value is the disclosure of return contents and the strict output-fidelity constraint ('Never invent hours, ratings, or revenue') plus the 'when available' caveat on Yelp, which tells the agent to expect missing-source handling rather than a hard failure.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by outputs, then the constraint. Nothing is padding except 'Read-only', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation. Efficient and skimmable.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload, and annotations cover safety. But a zero-required-parameter, openWorld tool never explains which identifier combinations actually drive a lookup (placeId vs location vs googleMapsUrl vs websiteUrl), leaving the agent to guess at a valid invocation.

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 57%, so several parameters (name, placeId, googleMapsUrl) carry no documentation anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all: it does not explain how name/placeId/location/websiteUrl relate, which are sufficient to run an audit, or what 'when available' implies for websiteUrl overrides. This is a clear compensation gap.

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 states a specific verb (Compare) and enumerates the resources it reconciles: the public Google listing, the restaurant website, and Yelp. It also names the concrete artifacts produced (score, discrepancies, impact notes, data gaps), which distinguishes it from the single-source siblings get_google_listing and get_yelp_listing. It stops short of explicitly routing agents away from those siblings, so it is not a 5.

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 composite framing implies when the tool is appropriate (cross-source reconciliation rather than a single lookup), and the schema-level 'example' parameter implies a demo path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and the sibling tools that fetch individual sources are never named as the alternative for narrower needs.

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