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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds material context beyond them: per-request billing with an approval wait, the exact return record shape, and the fact that Maps carries no e-mail. It does not detail rate limits or failure behavior, but covers the operationally important traits.

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 a [read · spend] tag and the core action, then params, then returns, then routing hints. Dense but every line carries usable information; the em-dash-free shorthand is efficient rather than bloated.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema, billed external call, the description supplies the return shape, the cost/approval caveat, account selection, and the follow-up tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: kind enumerates wholesaler|manufacturer|distributor, location has an example ('Istanbul'), region_code is the country code (TR), and the two gservice account params are explained as the account selector. Only `language` is left undocumented.

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 suppliers of a product) plus the backing service (Google Maps Places API). It is clearly distinguished from nearby siblings by naming list_customers (saved suppliers) and create_customer (persisting one), and from generic search_maps_places by the supplier-specific kind filter.

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 a concrete workflow: check list_customers for already-saved suppliers, then use create_customer to save a new one, and warns that calls are billed and require approval. It does not spell out when to prefer this over the sibling search_maps_places/search_gservice_maps, which is the one gap.

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