Chain Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool layers a documented enrichment on the Google Maps search pipeline, implying a read/enrichment operation. However, it doesn't address async behavior, rate limits, or any operational caveats beyond this.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'documented enrichment' appears twice and is slightly redundant, but there is no material waste.

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 7-parameter enrichment tool, the description plus schema provide sufficient context: the query intent is explicit, the Google Maps pipeline is named, input parameters are fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists. It doesn't elaborate on execution modes, but the schema already covers those details.

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 parameters already have semantic descriptions. The tool description adds no per-parameter detail, but the schema carries the weight; baseline 3 is 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Detect') and a specific resource ('chain membership'), and names the underlying ai_chain_info enrichment. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search, review, and contact-enrichment tools.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it when you want to know whether a business is part of a chain.' It doesn't name an alternative sibling or provide a when-not, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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