UK business leads with directors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two operational facts an agent must plan around: latency ('about 1-3 minutes for 10 leads') and per-lead billing cost ($0.05, $0.04 on Gold), which is meaningful context beyond structured fields. It does not cover failure modes or what happens when Companies House matching fails, keeping it at 4.

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-loads what the tool returns, then usage, then the two cost/latency facts an agent needs before committing. Four sentences with no filler, though the 'everything find_local_businesses returns plus...' clause is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the match-confidence rating, which is exactly what the description must carry. Combined with cost, latency, geographic scope and target use case, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters with examples and defaults. The description only echoes two of them at a high level ('search UK cities or postcodes', 'any business type') and adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (UK business leads from Google Maps, enriched via Companies House) and enumerates the differentiating fields (director name, company number, incorporation date, company age, SIC codes). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling find_local_businesses ('everything find_local_businesses returns plus...'), so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

'Use it for UK B2B prospecting' gives clear usage context, and the framing against find_local_businesses implies when the extra enrichment is or isn't needed. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule (e.g. 'use find_local_businesses if you don't need director data'), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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