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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a concrete cost (USDC $0.01 via x402), a fixed result count, and the negative scope (not routing/Maps data). It omits auth requirements, failure modes, and geographic coverage limits, but the paid-search side effect is made explicit.

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: the first fronts the core action and output, the second adds essential exclusion and cost. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a single-string-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, result shape, relevance cue, exclusion, and cost. The notable gaps are authentication and no-match edge-case behavior, but the core invocation context is present.

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 carry parameter meaning. It adds that the query should contain 'place terms,' narrowing the free-form string parameter, but it provides no examples, required components (e.g., city, state), or handling of ambiguous location names. This is minimal compensation.

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 ('Find'), a bounded resource (5 ranked location/address/hours/local-context sources), and a scope condition (place terms in query). The 'Not routing or Maps data' sentence distinguishes it from adjacent mapping tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling search tools it differs 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?

The description implies use for place-based lookups and explicitly excludes routing/Maps data, giving one clear when-not. It does not name alternatives among siblings (e.g., web_search, news_search) or state when those would be preferred, so guidance is mostly implicit.

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