local_business

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

The description adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses the SANDBOX behavior (dummy data, no payment, implying production calls are paid) and includes an explicit prompt-injection warning about third-party listing names/addresses/phones being data, not instructions. It does not explain pagination or whether 20 results is a hard cap, and the readOnlyHint=false annotation is left uninterpreted, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 result shape and source are front-loaded in the first sentence, with operational notes after. It is dense and somewhat compressed into few sentences (result fields, source, sandbox note, safety note all chained), but no sentence is pure filler.

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, the description still names the return envelope (JSON with keyword, businesses) and enumerates the per-business fields, and it covers the sandbox/payment nuance and data-provenance risk. What remains unstated (result count limits beyond 20, error behavior) is minor for a simple three-parameter lookup.

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% and the schema itself documents keyword constraints, language defaults, and location codes thoroughly. The description adds only concrete query examples ("plumber", "coffee shop") and names the upstream service; it introduces no semantics the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete resource (up to 20 Google Maps businesses), the query shape ("plumber", "coffee shop"), and the exact fields returned (name, category, address, phone, website, rating, coordinates), plus the upstream source. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-siblings like local_market_check or google_serp, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 only implied: the example queries convey the intended 'local discovery' scenario, and the sandbox note implies a production/paid mode. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over google_serp or local_market_check, and no prerequisites beyond what the schema states.

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