Scrape Google Maps businesses

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: cost per call, non-idempotency with an explicit 'do not retry' warning, blocking duration of 30-120s, and user-confirmation requirement. This aligns with the idempotentHint=false annotation and enhances the agent's understanding.

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 purposeful sentences. The first states the action and output fields; the second packs cost, non-idempotency, confirmation, keyword cost, blocking time, and keyword advice. Every phrase earns its place and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the return fields, cost, blocking, and retry behavior. It does not mention the async fallback (job id) that appears in the max_wait_seconds schema, but that is covered structurally. Slight gap in explicit sibling differentiation prevents a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'keywords' parameter (cost behavior, specificity guidance, example) and clarifies that 'email' extraction is conditional via the email parameter. This goes slightly beyond the schema without overburdening the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google Maps and return business leads' followed by a concrete list of returned data fields. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_scrape_job and get_scrape_results, which handle async portions of the workflow.

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?

It provides clear context: costs 2 credits, must confirm with user, supports multiple related keywords at the same cost, and advises specific keyword formatting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools (e.g., for async scenarios), though the blocking behavior and max_wait_seconds schema hint at it.

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