brave_local_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the fallback mechanism to web search, the types of information returned (business details, ratings, contact info), and the context of local/physical searches. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and a bulleted list of return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete—it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return details. It lacks output format specifics (e.g., structure of returned data) and error handling, but compensates well with clear operational context.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it provides an example query ('pizza near Central Park') that reinforces the schema's guidance but doesn't explain parameter interactions or additional constraints.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Searches for local businesses and places') using a specific resource ('Brave's Local Search API'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'physical locations, businesses, restaurants, services' rather than images, news, videos, or general web content.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the query implies 'near me' or mentions specific locations') and mentions an alternative behavior ('Automatically falls back to web search if no local results are found'), though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'brave_web_search'.

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