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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description still adds material context beyond them: a hard 20-place cap, an expected 30-60 second latency, and a cost of 10 points per call. Only the return format/pagination is left 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 definition is front-loaded and the field list is useful, but the same content is restated verbatim in Korean and English. The repeat is not pure waste (latency and point cost appear only in the Korean sentence) yet it inflates the description noticeably for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies return fields, result limits, latency, and cost — everything needed to call it correctly and budget for it. It is complete for its complexity level.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'keyword' including its length bound and example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that a keyword drives the search, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Google Maps place search') and enumerates the returned fields (name, address, phone, rating, reviews, hours, coordinates) plus the 20-result cap for a keyword. The 'Maps' qualifier implicitly separates it from siblings like google_search, google_news_search, and google_shopping_search, though it never names an alternative 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 description says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to choose it over google_search, search_juso, or location, and no exclusion conditions. Usage is only inferable from the word 'place search'.

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