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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the 'FREE' cost signal and makes the read-only nature clear via 'Check whether.' It could mention response format or side effects, but the output schema exists and the operation is straightforwardly non-mutating.

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, no filler. The key action and context are front-loaded, 'FREE' is immediately visible, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple, schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description adds needed context about when to use it. It does not discuss limitations or relationships to siblings in depth, but it is sufficient 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 the parameters are already well documented with examples. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and names the exact resource and scope: whether a business is named in AI answers for a given money category and place. This clearly distinguishes it from the purchase-oriented sibling tools, which focus on engagement and quotes.

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 gives clear use context: 'top-of-funnel' and 'agents run it to diagnose a client.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer a sibling, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know this is an initial diagnostic step.

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