Local Business Data MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the core action (searching businesses near coordinates), it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The Google Maps reference adds some context but doesn't cover operational 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, but the second is an incomplete fragment ('To see it in action, right click on a specific point in the map on Google Maps and select "') that adds little value and ends abruptly. While the first sentence is efficient, the second is wasteful and poorly structured, reducing overall effectiveness.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a search tool with many parameters and no structured output documentation, users need more context about response format, error handling, and operational limits to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions geographic coordinates generally but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search businesses near by specific geographic coordinates.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('businesses'), and scope ('near by specific geographic coordinates'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_in_area', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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' or 'search_in_area'. The second sentence about 'right click on a specific point in the map on Google Maps' is a usage example rather than contextual guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advantages.

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