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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: flat 2-credit pricing, failures and empty results never charged, cache semantics (default always fresh), and the explicit 'No emails' data limitation. It stops short of stating rate limits, auth requirements, or result-shape caveats beyond the field list.

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?

Front-loaded and compact, with the field list first and the pricing/caching caveats after. It wastes a bit of space by stating pricing twice ('Flat 2 credits' then 'Costs 2 credits') in the same short paragraph.

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 6-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key unknowns: cost model, failure billing, cache behavior, and available output fields. Only deeper operational details (limits on result quality, rate limits) are absent, which is minor here.

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 all six parameters are already documented (q, cache, limit, language, location, locationCode). The description only restates the cache default and adds the 'no emails' constraint, adding little meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Local businesses from a Maps search') and enumerates the returned fields (name, address, phone, website, rating, hours, place id), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling tool covers Maps/local business lookup, so differentiation is not required.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (business lookup by keyword/location), and it does give one conditional instruction — pass cache=true for a free 24h hit. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of when not to use it.

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