intelligence-api

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses return format (Lead Quality Score 0-100 and outreach hints) but omits mutation safety, rate limits, or error behaviors. 'Search' implies read-only but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states function, second states return value. Appropriately front-loaded with core action and sized for the tool's complexity.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return structure (Lead Quality Score and hints). Missing only minor details like the 'max' parameter behavior or API key prerequisites that could be mentioned explicitly.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description maps 'type' to 'query' parameter implicitly but adds no syntax details, examples, or clarification beyond what schema already provides for the 4 parameters.

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?

Specific verb 'Search' with clear resource 'Google Maps businesses' and scope 'by type and location'. The mention of 'Lead Quality Score' and 'outreach hints' distinguishes this from generic map searches and implies its lead-generation purpose versus sibling 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives named, but the focus on 'Lead Quality Score' and 'outreach hints' implies usage for sales prospecting and lead generation contexts. Lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus 'maps_leads' sibling.

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