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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the job is async, returns the job id immediately, and runs in the background until status=done. It omits concurrency/rate limits or auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and async contract front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of omitting needed parameter detail, but structurally 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?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with 14% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves most parameter behavior and the required queries/zones distinction undocumented, so an agent cannot reliably construct a call from this alone.

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 only 14%, so the description should compensate, yet it only explains stop_at ("caps the number of unique places"). The six other parameters — zones, queries, scrap_mode, max_per_phone, extra_columns, and even the country default — carry no meaning in the description, and scrap_mode's enum values are unexplained.

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?

"Launch a Google Maps extraction (async)" gives a specific verb (launch) and resource (Google Maps extraction), clearly distinguishing it from create_enrichment_job, create_monitor, and create_pipeline by domain. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, hence not a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing points to estimate_scrap before running, nor to get_job/get_job_results for polling. The mention of status=done only implicitly hints at a follow-up call, leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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