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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, it discloses cost (0.5 USDC per completed call), the payment mechanism (x402), a failure guarantee ("Never charged if the call fails"), and result ordering (most problems first). That pricing and billing-safety information is exactly the context annotations cannot carry and is essential before an agent spends money.

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?

Purpose, payload, and the pagination instruction are front-loaded before the long parenthetical list of website deficiencies, so an agent gets the point immediately. The issue enumeration is lengthy but each item is a distinct returned signal rather than filler; only the closing cost sentence could be tightened.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by listing the fields and deficiency flags an agent will receive. Pricing, billing risk, ordering, and pagination are covered; only matters like total result counts or per-page lead density are left implicit.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including enums and defaults. The description only reinforces the two required parameters' single-value semantics ("one type in one place") and the page-based batching, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

"Find sales leads: independent local businesses of one type in one place" gives a specific verb, resource, and a hard constraint (one category, one location) with three concrete examples. The enumerated payload (name, address, phone, email, socials, website issues) makes it unmistakable against siblings like audit_landing_page or get_business_details, which operate on a known site or business.

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?

It gives clear selection context ("Ideal for agencies, web designers and outreach agents") and explains the pagination workflow with "Use page to get the next batch." It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as get_business_details for a single known business, and states no exclusions.

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