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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the job is asynchronous, returns a job id immediately, and must be polled before results are fetched. It omits other operationally relevant facts such as cost/credits, rate limits, or whether a launched job can be cancelled.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the purpose and the async contract are front-loaded before the stop_at tip. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

It covers the async lifecycle and the single non-obvious parameter well enough for an agent to launch and follow up, and it compensates for the missing output schema by describing the immediate return value. However, with seven parameters, no annotations, and very thin schema descriptions, the input contract remains substantially under-explained.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only one of seven parameters (stop_at). The meanings of scrap_mode values (fast/normal/ultra), max_per_phone, extra_columns, and the intended content/format of queries and zones are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Launch a Google Maps extraction') and immediately qualifies it as async, which clearly separates it from enrichment/veille/pipeline siblings by resource type. It stops short of naming which sibling create_* to use instead in a given situation, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiating.

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?

It gives concrete downstream routing — poll get_job until status=done, then call get_job_results — and states the condition for setting stop_at ('when the user wants ~N results'). It does not say when to prefer this over create_enrichment_job or estimate_scrap, so no true alternative/exclusion guidance.

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