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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the data source and freshness ('Live Google Maps listings') and the conditional behavior that registrations are returned only when an id is supplied. It says nothing about coverage limits, cost, or result volume for radius queries, which is a meaningful omission for an open-world lookup.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, but the first is a dense run-on that stacks four output categories into one clause chain, so it is not well front-loaded. A reader has to parse the whole list before learning the tool's core identity.

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?

All seven parameters are optional and there is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned and what the defaults do. It enumerates the sections well and covers the id path, but never states what happens when called with no id and no location, nor anything about the response shape or result volume — a notable gap given required=[].

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 coverage is already 86%, but the description still adds meaning by explaining what each section actually contains (brands = tenant mix of chains within a radius; landmarks = universities with enrollment, hospitals, malls; uses = a target use at or near the address). It also clarifies the id-vs-location path. It does not explain useRadiusMiles, the one parameter with no schema description.

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 names a specific resource set — businesses at an address, brands/tenant mix within a radius, target uses, and landmarks within N miles — with concrete examples (laundromat, dentist, universities with enrollment). It is clear what data comes back, though the verb is implied rather than stated and it never names the sibling tools (find_businesses, get_business) it should be distinguished from.

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?

Usage is only implied through data descriptions ('operating at an address today', 'chains within a radius'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like find_businesses or search_properties, which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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