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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: results are restricted to the continental US, and the response includes places plus fields_granted per query, hinting that some requested fields may not be granted. It omits other behavior the schema only implies, such as the bounded candidate pool and default result limit.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the purpose and geographic scope front-loaded before the return note. It is efficient, though the second sentence is compressed to the point of being cryptic about what fields_granted actually means.

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?

Incorrect placeholder

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is low (25%: map_id, queries, and conversation_id carry no description), but the nested query properties are extensively documented, so the schema does most of the work. The description contributes the batch semantics implied by "per query" and confirms map_id must reference an existing map, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that.

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 ("Find places and street addresses") plus a scope constraint ("continental US") and a prerequisite ("an existing map_id"). It is clearly a read/search operation, distinguishable from mutation siblings like map_edit_places, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage signal is "for an existing map_id," which implies the tool is used after a map is created or selected. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus map_get_state, map_list, or map_edit_places, and no mention of the multiple search modes (name, text, place_id, near, along_route) that determine whether a call is even valid.

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