Discover opportunity candidates

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning normalization and the Google Places provider. It also states the tool does not deeply audit. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not clarify whether the tool creates records (given readOnlyHint=false), which would be useful.

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 20-word sentence that immediately conveys the core action and constraints. No wasted words; front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 high parameter count and lack of schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain the purpose among siblings beyond the audit comment, nor does it cover parameter usage or result behavior. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter context.

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 description coverage, the description only explains 'websites' (explicit URLs) and 'provider' (Google Places), leaving 'query', 'location', 'limit', and 'serviceIds' undocumented. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool, even considering the output 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 clearly states it 'finds and normalizes public business websites', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'opportunity_audit' by explicitly noting it does not deeply audit, making the purpose well-defined.

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 implies usage for discovering candidates via URLs or Google Places, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. The 'not deeply audit' hint is helpful but insufficient for clear usage criteria.

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