discover_local_leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that results come from Google Maps and enumerates the extracted fields, but says nothing about rate limits, quotas, permissions, or whether the operation is idempotent/read-only, and the schema's 1-100 'limit' cap is never mentioned in prose.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and its engine, the second enumerates return fields. With no output schema present, that second sentence earns its place rather than being filler.

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 no output schema, the field list is a valuable completeness contribution, and the required query parameter is covered by the schema. Gaps remain around sibling differentiation and result-volume expectations, but the core contract is conveyed.

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 all four parameters (query, location, lang, limit) plus defaults and bounds are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or interplay guidance (e.g. how location combines with query), so it sits at the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Discover') and resource (local businesses/establishments/B2B prospects) and even names the underlying engine (Google Maps), so the capability is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'search_places', which appears to overlap heavily.

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 'B2B prospects' hints at the lead-generation use case, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the near-identical 'search_places' sibling that an agent would need to choose between them.

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