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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully lists returned fields (compensating for the absent output schema) but omits the significant behavioral fact that results are masked unless an x_api_key or payment signature is supplied — that gating lives only inside the parameter descriptions.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the field enumeration follows. "In any city worldwide" is mildly redundant with the location parameter.

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?

Listing the extracted fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, which is good. However, a paid, gated-data tool with no output schema should disclose the masked-vs-unmasked behavior and any cost implication in the description; leaving that to a parameter description leaves a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 query, location, limit, and the two payment-key parameters. The description mentions only output fields, adding nothing about parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: find local businesses/companies/places, and enumerates the extracted fields. It implies the lead-generation niche, which separates it from b2b_company_dossier and social_search, but it never names or contrasts those siblings directly.

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?

"For lead generation and verification" hints at the intended use case, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over b2b_company_dossier, domain_intel, or web_extract, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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