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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the data source (Google Maps), the geographic restriction (Australian businesses only), and the key returned artifact (each match's place_id).

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action and scope come first and the downstream value of place_id is attached as justification. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: geographic constraint, the primary return value (place_id), and downstream tools. It does not mention behavior on ambiguous or no-match results, a minor remaining gap.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema carries the definition. The description's example ('Corner Dental Newtown') usefully demonstrates the expected query format of business name plus suburb, adding marginal value over the schema's terse 'Business name and suburb.'

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 ('Search Google Maps for an Australian business by name and suburb') plus a concrete example query, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_questions and order_report, which it names as downstream consumers rather than peer lookups.

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?

Tells the agent the situation this tool serves: obtaining a place_id that feeds get_questions and order_report, which routes the agent through the correct pipeline. It does not state any exclusions or what to do when no match is found, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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