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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the description is free to add operational context - the billing model ('billed like an API request', one unit per result page) and the consent-wall proxy behavior. These are genuinely beyond the annotations. The stray 'keep max_results modest' advice references a parameter this tool doesn't expose, which slightly muddies the picture.

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?

Front-loads the payoff (the field list) and is dense with no filler, so the long enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema. Minor redundancy in stating 'as JSON' then 'Returns JSON', and the max_results sentence refers to something outside this tool's schema.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating return fields, and it covers identification methods, proxy/consent behavior, and billing. The only gap is the irrelevant max_results note, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents gl, hl, raw, url, place_id, feature_id, and proxy_country. The description mostly restates the identification parameters (place_id 'ChIJ...', feature_id '0xHEX:0xHEX') rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, 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 action and resource: 'Returns the full data for one Google Maps place as JSON', and enumerates the returned fields. The 'one place' scope cleanly distinguishes it from the search-oriented siblings (google_local, google_search) without needing to name 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?

Explains the three ways to identify a place (place_id, url, feature_id) and notes feature_id is fastest, which is useful invocation context, but never states when to reach for this tool versus a sibling like google_local or when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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