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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses per-request billing, that the call waits for approval, a hard cap of 20 results, that no e-mail is available, and that nothing is persisted. These are exactly the side-effect and cost traits an agent can't infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 the operation and cost signal, then parameters, then return shape, then the saving alternative — a sensible order with little waste. Slightly dense in the parameter enumeration, but every clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return field list, the result cap, the account-selection mechanism, and the follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and does so for nearly all eight parameters, including example values for `query`/`location` and country/language code formats. It stops short of explaining the precedence or interaction between `gservice_account_id` and `gservice_account_uuid`, or defaults for the numeric filters.

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 (search Google Maps Places for businesses) and pins down the backing API, which is exactly what an agent needs to distinguish this from generic search tools. The bracketed `[read · spend]` tag up front also signals the operation's nature immediately.

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 context is clear: find real businesses with public contact info, and the description explicitly routes saving to `create_customer` and notes the approval flow. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't differentiate against the similarly named sibling `search_gservice_maps` or `find_suppliers`, leaving an agent to guess which map/search tool to pick.

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