local_market_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the price (0.1 USDC on Base via x402), the quote-first flow, and that missing or partial results remain explicit rather than silently degraded. It does not cover retry/idempotency behavior, which the schema's confirmNewPurchase hint partly shoulders.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and deliverables lead, followed by the quote prerequisite and the pricing clause. Every sentence contributes; length is justified by the multi-part output and payment model.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return (one JSON report containing competitor domains, optional own-domain presence, and action tips) and the pricing model. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though the combined anyOf requirement structure is left to the schema.

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 every parameter including aliases and the confirmNewPurchase semantics. The description adds only the notion of a single keyword/location and optional own-domain presence, which is baseline-level value over structured fields.

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 compound action: comparing organic Google results and Maps listings for one keyword and location, and enumerates the deliverables (competitor domains, optional own-domain presence, 3-5 tips). This composite scope inherently separates it from single-purpose siblings like serp_report, maps_search, and competitors.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to read the quote endpoint first (local_market_check_quote) before buying, which is a concrete prerequisite rather than implied guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus serp_report or maps_search, so it does not reach the top of the range.

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