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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with it. The description adds some behavioral value by enumerating what gets produced (emails, socials, website signals, no-website flags), but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether it calls external services for lookups.

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 sentence is front-loaded and short, but it is duplicated verbatim with a stray ellipsis artifact ("role-based emails…."), wasting a full sentence. Cleaned up it would be a tight two-line definition.

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 partly compensates by listing the enrichment fields returned, which is the most useful thing it does. But for an open-world enrichment tool taking a nested input blob, it omits input format specifics and any note on lookup coverage or failure modes.

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?

There is a single nested `input` object at 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3. The schema description is merely a link rather than real field documentation, and the description only implies the expected input is raw Google Maps scraper output — no syntax, required fields, or nested shape details.

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 and resource: it turns Google Maps scraper output into enriched sales leads with role-based emails, socials, website signals and no-website flags. The added outputs distinguish it from generic scrapers like maps_local_seo or osm_local_business_finder, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Works with the Google Maps Scraper" establishes the input prerequisite, so an agent knows this is a post-processing step. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over email_finder_scraper, b2b_crm_enricher, or other enrichment siblings, and no exclusions.

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