local_businesses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a critical trait: the call 'costs 0.05 USDC on Base via x402'. That is genuine value beyond the schema. It still omits other behavior an agent needs (return shape, whether the purchase is idempotent/one-shot, rate limits), so it lands at a middling 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: it names the resource and its fields first, then appends the payment caveat. No filler or redundancy, though the dash-appended pricing clause slightly bends the 'one idea per sentence' ideal.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and the cost, which is what an agent most needs. But for a paid, 5-parameter tool it omits pagination/limit behavior, idempotency semantics, and sibling routing, leaving gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, categories, confirmNewPurchase, and location_coordinate. The description reinforces that results are geo-scoped and tied to a payment, but adds no syntax meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Business listings around a coordinate') and enumerates the returned fields (name, category, address, phone, website, rating), so the agent knows exactly what resource it retrieves. It does not name or distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as maps_search or local_market_check, which keeps it short of 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?

The phrase 'lead lists for local outreach' implies the intended use case, giving a hint of when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like maps_search, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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