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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that successful answers are billed against the same credit balance calls use while empty or refused requests are free, and it explains the degraded/degradation_reason/short_list_reason output semantics with concrete enum-like values. readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the stated billing side effect rather than contradicted by 'reads place data only'.

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 and the read-only/no-call constraint are front-loaded in the first two clauses, and every sentence carries information. The final sentence is dense and meandering ('a set that grows over time — among them a part of the request that cannot be true of any business'), which costs some clarity.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return payload (venue name, dialable number, fit rationale, ready-to-send brief) plus billing and degraded/short-list semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 limit, query, and location_hint including precedence rules and character limits. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return candidate US businesses to phone') and immediately clarifies it is a discovery step, not a calling step: 'Reads place data only; places no call.' That last clause cleanly separates it from the sibling place_call without the reader 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?

Gives concrete triggering examples ('booking a restaurant or asking a shop a question') and implies this precedes an actual call, which routes the agent away from place_call. It never explicitly names place_call or states when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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