Search businesses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals non-obvious behavior: Google ranks by prominence, lacks website/phone suggests last, and the 60-result ceiling can cause truncation. This is valuable context beyond the schema and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then a compact IMPORTANT block provides essential behavioral warnings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, nested filters, and an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral pitfall and directs to sweep_area for coverage. It doesn't discuss location/radius interaction, but the schema already documents those fields, and the output schema covers return values. The description is nearly complete for the agent's decision-making.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the has_website and has_phone filters by explaining their effect on ranking/truncation, and mentions 'lead-qualification filters' generally. However, it does not describe the remaining undocumented parameters (e.g., min_rating, price_levels), so it doesn't fully compensate for the 33% gap.

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 states 'Search Google Maps for businesses matching a query, with lead-qualification filters' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also mentions sweep_area as a sibling alternative, which distinguishes this tool's purpose from others.

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 explicitly says 'Use sweep_area for representative coverage of a city or region', naming an alternative and when to use it. It also provides a key usage caveat about result truncation under has_website:false, helping the agent judge result representativeness.

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