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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world search, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: a maximum of 20 results, an expected processing time of 30–60 seconds, and a cost of 15 points per call. These are important for planning and cost awareness, though permission or failure behavior is not covered.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, latency, and cost, which is good. However, the same content is repeated in Korean and English, making it less efficient than it could be, even if the bilingual format is intentional.

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 one simple required parameter, a clear list of returned fields, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. The main omission is routing guidance relative to similar search tools, but the core operational details are present.

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%, so the single 'keyword' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that this is a keyword search but does not add syntax, format, or interpretation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Google Maps place search') and lists the returned fields, so an agent can understand what the tool does without the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as geo_place_search or geo_address_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 instead of similar sibling tools like geo_place_search, geo_address_search, or location. Usage is only implied by the keyword-place-search phrasing, which is insufficient given the crowded sibling set.

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