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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns a 'scored checklist' and specifies 'what to check, and in what order'. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set output expectations.

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 sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, followed by three useful example invocations. There is no filler or redundancy, though the example block makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary. Each line 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?

For a read-only audit tool, the description covers the purpose, the facets involved, the output format, and realistic user intents. With an output schema present and annotations covering side-effect safety, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no new parameter-level semantics, only examples; per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audits a business's local search presence' and enumerates concrete facets (map-pack factors, listing consistency, category selection, site fundamentals). It is clear and substantive, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like business_teardown or competitor_landscape, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three example invocations provide clear, concrete triggering contexts, such as 'Why doesn't X show up when someone searches...' and 'Give me a scored GBP/NAP checklist...'. This gives the agent a strong sense of when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other situations.

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