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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the privacy scoping (no personal names, no emails), the per-call row cap, and three distinct payment rails with exact costs. It stops short of return format, errors, or pagination behavior beyond the row cap.

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 description is front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then filters and limits, then cost. Dense but every clause adds call-relevant information with no filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must explain returns, and it does by listing the record fields. It covers limits and payment, omitting only pagination/format details an agent might want.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does name both parameters and their roles (filter by country, filter by q). However it never explains what 'q' searches over or the matching semantics, leaving half the parameter meaning to inference.

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 the resource precisely (small-business web-agency leads for AU/NZ) and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from utility siblings like dataset_fx or dataset_worldbank. It lacks an explicit verb ('list'/'fetch'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 states the filtering options (country/q) and the 25-row cap, which implies usage, but never says when to prefer this tool or what it is not for. No prerequisites or exclusions beyond the field-level privacy note.

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