discover_local_independents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it details the algorithm's penalties and rewards (high review counts, chain disqualification, tenure, etc.), explains the tier system (tier_1 through tier_4), and indicates it returns a score breakdown and practical_note. It also instructs the agent to always include place_id, which is practical behavioral guidance.

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, each earning its place: first gives purpose and ranking, second gives usage trigger and examples, third describes output and the place_id follow-up. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (tier, total score, signal_breakdown, practical_note) and gives follow-up guidance about place_id. It is less complete on parameter details like radius_km and min_tier, but overall the tool has enough context for correct invocation in most cases.

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 only 17% (just include_chains), so the description must compensate. It does explain 'query' and 'near' as the query and location, mentions max_results explicitly, and touches on include_chains via chain disqualification and min_tier via tier definitions. However, it never clarifies the meaning or filtering behavior of radius_km or how min_tier values map to filtering, leaving a clear 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 opens with a specific verb 'Find' and a clear resource: 'independent local businesses for a given query and location,' with a differentiating ranking criterion ('LocalRoots' independence score instead of Google's review-volume default'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_farms_with_online_store by covering general local business discovery and from score_specific_business by focusing on a list of results rather than one business.

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 explicit trigger examples ('Use this when a user asks for local coffee, an independent bookstore, a real bakery, etc.'), which is strong guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or point to alternative sibling tools for specific cases (e.g., farms or scoring a known business), so it stops short of a 5.

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