GMapsScraper.AI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond the page parameter, output shape, or whether scraping is subject to quotas.

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 with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple scraping tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

For a three-parameter scraping tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations, it leaves behavioral details like pagination limits and response format unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents all three parameters, including the FID/URL mutual requirement and the page default. The description only names URL and FID, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: scrape Google Maps place photos, and it identifies the accepted inputs as URL or FID. It is distinguishable from sibling tools (reviews, search) by the word 'photos', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus scrape_google_maps_reviews or scrape_google_maps_search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is that a URL or FID is required, which is already in the schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits meaningful traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, output shape, or whether repeated requests are safe.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information it conveys.

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?

The schema is fully described, which covers the four parameters, and the purpose is understandable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral and return-value context largely implicit.

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 input schema already documents fid, url, page, and sort_by in detail. The description only repeats that a Google Maps URL or FID is used and adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: scraping Google Maps reviews for a place. It also names the accepted identifiers (URL or FID), making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling photo/search scrapers beyond the resource name.

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?

It implies usage by saying reviews are scraped for a place, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as the photos or search scrapers. The mention of URL/FID is parameter information rather than usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of pagination limits, rate limits, latency, credit cost, or the free-plan restriction that the schema alludes to for `extra`. "Structured business data" is the only hint about what comes back, and it is too vague.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope come first. It is arguably undersized for a six-parameter scraping tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain pagination behavior, geo/locale effects, and the shape of the returned listings. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at result limits and cost.

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 all six parameters (q, gl, hl, ll, page, extra) are already documented with defaults and examples. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no extra credit.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Scrape Google Maps business listings by keyword") plus the kind of output ("structured business data"). The phrase "business listings" implicitly separates it from its photo and review siblings, but 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus scrape_google_maps_photos or scrape_google_maps_reviews, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or quota context. An agent must infer the routing from the resource noun alone.

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