Local Business Leads: Google Maps Alternative (OpenStreetMap)

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the underlying Apify Actor and account, the per-business price, that zero-result runs are not charged, and that run_max_charge_usd hard-caps spend. It also discloses non-obvious behaviors such as maxResults set above run_max_items billing more than is returned, and typical latency of 5-15 s with timeout handling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then parameter tips, then runtime/billing behavior — a sensible order for an agent that may stop reading early. It is dense but the 'Parameters:' block partly re-explains fields already documented in the schema, which is the only real 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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the per-item return fields (agentSummary, osmUrl, attribution, etc.), the envelope shape {actor, count, items}, and the ODbL attribution obligation. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without further discovery.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema does not: radiusKm turns a boundary search into a circle, latitude+longitude pair with a 5 km default radius, and requireEmail sharply cuts results because few OSM entries list email. The maxResults vs. run_max_items billing interaction is the kind of meaning a schema cannot express, though a few tips merely restate schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List local businesses by category and place') with the data source (OpenStreetMap) and the fields returned. It explicitly names the two closest siblings, npi_provider_lists and trucking_company_leads, and explains how it differs from each (any business type worldwide vs. official healthcare/FMCSA registries).

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use example ('plumbers in Phoenix or cafes in a ZIP') and explicit when-not-to-use rules with the alternative named in each case: US healthcare goes to npi_provider_lists and reviews/ratings are out of scope entirely. It also flags the practical trap that whole states or countries are slow and tells the agent to narrow the area or raise run_timeout_secs.

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