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

The description characterizes the tool as a query/search operation, implying a read-only action, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, so the score is 1 and the contradiction is flagged.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the trigger condition and scope without any waste. It is appropriately sized for a trigger statement.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and relies entirely on the schema for invocation details. It provides enough to select the tool but does not cover return values or other behavioral aspects, making it just adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 specifies a clear verb (查询) and resource (Google 本地搜索结果, 附近商家, 地点列表, 本地服务, 基于位置的本地结果). It does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as google_maps or google_map_details, 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?

It provides explicit trigger conditions: '当用户需要查询...时触发' and lists several scenarios. However, it offers no when-not guidance or named alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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