Chain Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it uses an 'enrichment' on top of a pipeline but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the fact that the tool supports synchronous/asynchronous execution via execution_mode/webhook parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, provides context about the underlying pipeline, and ends with a clear usage directive. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not mention the async execution capabilities (execution_mode, async, webhook parameters), which are important behavioral options for this tool. The description is sufficient for a basic read operation but misses a key aspect of the tool's flexibility.

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 input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Detect chain membership' and explicitly states the tool's purpose: determining whether a business is part of a chain. It also mentions the underlying pipeline ('Google Maps search pipeline') and the documented ai_chain_info enrichment, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like businesses_search or google_maps_search.

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 description provides an explicit 'Use it when you want to know whether a business is part of a chain.' This clearly indicates the intended usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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