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

The description discloses the return fields ('name, type, address, phone, website, hours, cuisine, and distance'), which is useful behavioral context an agent can expect. Since annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, the added value here is the response shape plus the implicit indication that results include structured place attributes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, followed by usage examples and supported categories—all sentences contribute useful information. It is a bit longer than necessary due to the extended example list and slight redundancy between 'local businesses... places' and 'any local business or place discovery question', but still well organized and scannable.

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 simple query+location search tool, the description covers what it returns, how to phrase queries, and the breadth of place categories, while the schema covers the radius default and location format. It does not specify result limits, sorting, or behavior on zero results, but these are minor gaps given the existing annotations and clear purpose.

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%: all three parameters (query, location, radius) have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds example query strings and supported categories, but does not materially deepen param semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Find local businesses, restaurants, services, and places near any location'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It further distinguishes itself from domain-specific siblings by framing itself as general local business/place discovery, and the long list of query examples reinforces that 'local_search' is the catch-all place-finding tool.

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 this for ... or any local business or place discovery question' gives explicit positive guidance with many illustrative example queries (restaurants, coffee shops, gas stations, pharmacies, etc.). However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or point to an alternative for related but distinct tasks, such as finding recreation areas or fuel stations, which exist as siblings.

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