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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful paging and domain-restriction context. It does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves important behavioral details unstated, such as what 'select' does and whether there are auth or rate-limit concerns.

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-loaded, but it is cryptic: 'AM-CORE' is undefined, 'offsets' is not mapped to the page parameter, and the meaning of 'data' is never clarified. It is concise without being sufficiently clear.

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?

This is a nine-parameter, open-world search tool with an output schema but no schema descriptions. The description omits most parameter semantics and does not route the agent between search and place lookup, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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% across nine parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gives hints for ll, place_id, data, and domain, while query, type, page, country, and language are left completely unexplained.

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 gives a verb and resource: 'Search places or select one by place_id/data.' However, 'select one' is vague, and it does not explain how this differs from the sibling google_maps_place, which appears to serve a similar place lookup role.

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?

It offers operational constraints about offsets, maximum paging, and supported domains, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus google_maps_place. An agent has to infer the search-vs-place distinction from the type enum and sibling name.

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