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

The annotations say readOnlyHint=false, which would otherwise look odd for a lookup; the description resolves this by disclosing 'Saved in the user's Puley history,' explaining the write side effect. It also discloses the 60-result cap and that ordering is Google Maps' own rather than a computed rank, adding real context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences with no padding, and the core definition is front-loaded before the parameter note. The mid-sentence line break and the abrupt 'business: its name or website' fragment make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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 no output schema, the description does state what comes back (the business's position against those above it, ordered, max 60) and the history side effect. For a 3-required-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient; cost/latency and the exact result shape remain unstated but are minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: 'business: its name or website' explicitly bounds that parameter, and the 'dentist in Austin, TX' example disambiguates search (keyword) from place (location). Only finer details — address granularity, business-name matching rules — are missing.

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 operation — where a business ranks on Google Maps for a keyword+place query, in Maps' own order, capped at 60 results. That is concrete enough to separate it from find_places or google_results, though it never names those siblings.

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 example 'dentist in Austin, TX' implicitly shows the intended query shape, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion against the many nearby search tools (find_places, google_results, find_leads). The agent must infer the use case.

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