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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing null-vs-zero semantics for rating, review_count and permanently_closed, how rating_desc and min_rating treat unrated businesses, what has_geo=false returns, and a credit cost model (1 per record, minimum 2). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 purpose followed by tightly packed, semicolon-delimited facts; almost every clause carries operational weight. It is on the dense side for an 8-sentence description and repeats one or two schema facts, so it is efficient but not maximally clean.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers cost, pagination sizing advice, null semantics, and sibling routing for a 21-parameter tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning the schema lacks: the locale-exact label requirement and facet discovery path for category, plus the interaction between min_rating>0 / rating_desc and null-rated records. Some clauses (e.g. min_rating exclusion) overlap the schema text, capping it below 5.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Search indexed Google Maps business records') plus the scope ('geographic and profile filters'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling datasets_google_map_nearby. An agent can distinguish this from datasets_google_map_item/facets/nearby without opening any 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?

Names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('Use datasets_google_map_nearby for proximity search') and points to datasets_google_map_facets for discovering category values. It does not spell out when-not-to-use cases beyond proximity, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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