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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses cost ($0.25 USDC on Base or Solana), the two auth mechanisms (X-PAYMENT header, or Bearer xs_ prepaid key), that it is excluded from the free trial, result cap of 20, and the enrichment policy (personal-looking emails dropped, opt-outs honoured). Missing are what happens on payment failure or partial enrichment failures.

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 core capability is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the first sentence is an unusually long, parenthetically-burdened construction that is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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, it conveys result shape (business listings plus role emails, phones, social links), limits, filtering rules, and the payment model — enough to call correctly. It stops short of describing the response envelope or behavior when payment credentials are missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents q, gl, num and location; the description only restates the 20-result cap. It does not clarify the q/query alias relationship or when to supply gl versus location, which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Maps/places businesses for a query and location (up to 20)' — and the enrichment clause ('business contact details only … extracted from each business website and contact page') is precisely what separates it from generic siblings like places_search or search_extract.

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 implied (local business lead generation with contact enrichment) and the payment/trial note is a real selection signal, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance such as 'use places_search when you only need listings, not contacts'.

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