score_specific_business

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: fetching Place Details from Google Places when place_id is given, and running a top-1 text search when only name+near are given. It also mentions the return shape mirrors discover_local_independents, which sets expectations about the response. It doesn't cover side effects or rate limits, but for a scoring tool this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the purpose, clarifies the return shape, provides usage context, and explains parameter behavior in a few sentences. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers the core aspects: inputs, behavior, usage scenario, and return shape reference. It relies on discover_local_independents for the exact shape, which is acceptable given sibling context. It could be more self-contained, but it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'by place_id, or by (name + near)' and details that place_id triggers a Places fetch while name+near triggers a text search. This gives meaningful semantics to all three parameters beyond bare names, though it doesn't address the case when both are provided.

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+resource: 'Score a specific business'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it's for a single place the user already has in mind, versus discovery-oriented siblings like discover_local_independents and find_farms_with_online_store.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this when a user asks "is X actually independent?" or wants to understand why a particular business ranked where it did.' It implies the tool is not for broad discovery, but does not explicitly state exclusions or name all alternative tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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