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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by listing the exact return fields (company name, address, phone, website, category, review metrics) and the default result count ('20+ leads per query'). It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It opens with the core action, lists output fields, then provides use cases and default behavior—every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 flat params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and typical use cases. It does not detail limitations like result quality or rate limits, but the presence of annotations and complete schema descriptions fill most gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter insight: it mentions 'business category and geography' which maps to business_type and city/state, and the '20+ leads' default aligns with max_results, but it mostly relies on the schema's strong field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool extracts B2B lead lists from Google Maps by category and geography, with specific output fields. It is distinct from validate_emails, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding search_local_businesses sibling, so it misses the highest bar.

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 clearly enumerates use cases: sales prospecting, market research, and building vendor lists. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it directly to alternatives.

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