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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description adds useful scope context (Local Pack 3-pack vs. full Places listings) and enumerates returned entities, but discloses nothing about rate limits, caching/freshness behavior, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is a return-field enumeration, which is defensible given there is no output schema, though it is a list rather than high-value prose.

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, listing returned fields (place_id/cid, rating, review count, etc.) is a genuine contribution and roughly compensates on the output side. However, four of five input parameters remain undocumented anywhere, and there is no guidance on geo/language or freshness, so the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them: gl, hl, fresh, and location are entirely unexplained, and even query is only loosely implied by "local queries." For a tool where gl/hl control geo-language targeting and fresh controls cache behavior, this leaves real invocation ambiguity.

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 ("Extract") and resource ("Google Local Pack (3-pack) and Google Places listings") scoped to local queries, which is clearly distinct from siblings like extract_shopping_results or keyword_ideas. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings such as google_serp, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says the tool is for "local queries" but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never references the obvious alternative (google_serp) for non-local SERP data. An agent must infer routing entirely from the resource name.

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