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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a search tool (implying read-only, non-destructive), uses real-time data, and is proactive/automatic for certain queries. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating location-based examples) and could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity. Every sentence adds value, but it's not maximally concise.

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 largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context well. The main gap is the lack of output format details, which is significant since there's no output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by emphasizing the type of information returned (real-time data about places).

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'query' format beyond the schema's example or 'count' constraints beyond the schema's range). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('finds information') and resources ('local businesses, services, attractions, locations'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool by emphasizing its focus on real-time local data versus the broader 'brave_web_search'. It provides concrete examples of what it searches for.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('whenever a query mentions specific places or location-based information') and provides detailed examples of use cases (e.g., questions about restaurants, 'near' queries, business hours). It also contrasts with alternatives by noting it provides 'more accurate and up-to-date information than your built-in knowledge', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative.

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