Find local businesses by category and city, with their contacts

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that it runs a specific Apify Actor (tacps126/contact-details) on the caller's account, the per-business price, the surcharge when contacts are found, and a $0.5 per-call spend cap. It also explains the enrichment pass (emails, phones, social profiles, email-on-site flag, site-liveness flag), which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before paying for a call.

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?

It is a single front-loaded paragraph that leads with what is produced and then layers enrichment, legality, and cost. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical data-field list borders on schema duplication.

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 9-parameter, open-world, paid scraping tool with an output schema, the description covers cost model, data source, enrichment behavior, and legal caveats. It omits runtime expectations and failure/partial-result behavior, which would matter for a job that scans many websites.

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 real meaning by tying cost to result volume ('about $0.00125 per business' plus the spend cap), which clarifies the practical effect of max_items. It does not, however, add anything about categories, radius_km, or extra_input beyond what the schema already documents.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it finds every business of given kinds in a city/area and enriches each with contacts scraped from its website. The opening phrase 'Lead lists without a list of websites' obliquely contrasts it with website-first siblings like find_website_contacts, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied (lead generation for business outreach) and a legal constraint is stated ('Use only for lawful business outreach (GDPR / CAN-SPAM)'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative such as find_website_contacts or find_companies for other starting points.

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