Local Business Data MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the email/social profile extraction feature, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, whether this is a read-only operation, or what format the results come in. The description is insufficient for a tool with 13 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality upfront. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it could potentially be more structured with clearer separation between primary search functionality and the email extraction feature.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether there are pagination considerations, or what happens when the email extraction feature is enabled. The description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it only hints at the 'extract_emails_and_contacts' parameter's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool searches for local businesses on Google Maps and mentions the optional email/social profile extraction feature. It specifies the resource (local businesses) and platform (Google Maps), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_in_area' or 'search_nearby' which might have similar functions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_in_area', 'search_nearby', or 'bulk_search'. It mentions the email extraction feature but doesn't explain when this should be enabled or what alternatives exist for similar functionality.

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