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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful result-shape context, including names, addresses, ratings, reviews, hours, holiday_hours with date format, and identifiers for follow-up detail calls.

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 tightly written sentences: the first covers purpose and return contents, and the second covers the follow-up workflow. The important scoping and routing information is front-loaded with no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does by listing the key result fields and the holiday_hours format. It also explains how to continue to detailed place lookup, making it complete for this search tool.

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 q, gl, and page are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching local businesses and places on Google Maps. It also distinguishes itself from google_maps_place by explicitly saying detailed place information comes from the sibling tool using data_id or place_id.

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?

Gives clear usage context for local place searches and explicitly names the follow-up tool for detailed place information. It does not explain when to choose this over other search siblings such as bing_search or google_search_light, but the local-business scope is clear.

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