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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the extracted fields (name, phone, website, address, hours, GPS), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about rate limits, API keys/credits, geographic coverage limits, caching, or result freshness.

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 sentences, zero filler. The capability statement leads and the return-field enumeration follows, both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 a 3-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. It omits operational context an agent would want — whether the call consumes credits, how location interacts with query, and any result-quality caveats.

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% — all three parameters (query, location, limit with its 1-25 range and default) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or example guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Find local businesses, companies, and places in any city worldwide' — plus the exact data fields returned, so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling occupies the maps/places domain, so the gap is minor.

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' implies the intended use case but offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent can infer context but must guess at boundaries (e.g., how this differs from web_extract or social_search for gathering business data).

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