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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: return shape (array of business objects, everything in one response, no pagination, truncated beyond 100 items), auth requirement (Apify API token via Authorization: Bearer), rate limit (60 calls/min/IP on this facade), and pricing ($1.00 per run + $0.03 per business scraped). This is unusually rich disclosure for a scraper.

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 with purpose and scope, then usage routing, then operational facts (auth, rate limit, pricing) — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense and runs long, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs; the only fat is the parenthetical alternative list, which is still justified.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (array of business objects, single response, truncation at 100 items). Combined with auth, rate-limit and pricing disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the cost.

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 7 parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the extracted-field list and the advice to 'refine the query for narrower results', but says nothing about the queries vs. searchQuery distinction, maxReviews, language, or proxyConfiguration beyond what the schema states.

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 (Extract) and resource (local business data from Google Maps) and enumerates the exact fields returned (names, addresses, phones, ratings, review counts, websites, GPS coordinates) plus scope (up to 100 businesses per call). It explicitly names the two siblings it is not (local_presence_audit, review_radar), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (lead lists, competitor maps, market research across a city or query — MANY businesses as raw data, no scoring or audit) and explicit when-not with named alternatives: local_presence_audit for a deep scored audit of ONE business, review_radar for detecting only NEW reviews on already-tracked businesses. The condition selecting each alternative is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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