local_pois

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API source ('Brave Local Search API') but fails to describe key traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if invalid IDs are provided. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetch extra information for locations') and specifies the API. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it appropriately concise, though it could be more structured with additional details if needed for clarity.

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 complexity (fetching location data via an external API), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool without further 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'ids' of type array of strings. The description does not explain what these IDs represent (e.g., location identifiers, coordinates), their format, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 the tool 'Fetch[es] extra information for locations' using a specific API, which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of 'extra information' (e.g., reviews, hours, contact details) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'local_descriptions' or 'rich_fetch', leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'local_descriptions' or 'web_search'. The description implies usage for location-related data but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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