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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds output details (business name, address, rating, etc.) and notes open/closed status. It does not contradict annotations and gives a good picture of expected results, though it lacks caveats like rate limits.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return fields, and use cases. All are informative, but 'Returns open/closed status' could be folded into the list of return fields to reduce redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the key return fields and use cases, making it reasonably complete. It doesn't explain behavior when location is omitted, but for a read-only search with well-documented schema, this is sufficient.

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 covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions and examples (query, location, max_results). The description only references 'query and location' generically, adding no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Search Google Maps for local businesses matching a query and location' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also enumerates return fields and differentiates from sibling tools like generate_leads and validate_emails.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('restaurant discovery, service provider lookup, or competitive local analysis') but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so context is clear.

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