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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those annotations by enumerating the returned fields (names, star ratings, review counts, category, address, phone, website), which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema. It omits result limits, pagination, or rate-limit behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by the return payload, and 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?

With annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description usefully fills the return-value gap by listing the fields returned. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter search tool, though a note on result count limits or ordering would remove the last uncertainty.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema with examples. The description restates 'keyword and optional location' but adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 verb and resource ('Search Google Maps for places') and enumerates the domain of results (restaurants, shops, services, businesses). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_airbnb, search_flights, and search_amazon, which are all vertical-specific searches.

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 description conveys the basic shape of use (keyword plus optional location) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative tool. Usage is implied by the generic 'search' framing rather than stated.

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