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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds material behavior beyond them: per-page billing ('Billed $0.01 per page'), the 10-results-per-page cap, and the fact that each requested page is billed separately. It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then returns, then optional bias, then limits, then routing, then cost. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly (place_id, name, address, phone, website, rating, review count, opening hours, coordinates), plus pagination and billing. It omits failure modes and any note on what happens when zero places match, which is the only gap for a 7-parameter open-world search.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema (lat/lng pairing, zoom range, pages 1-20, query max length, country/language codes). The description reinforces the lat/lng+zoom bias concept and the per-page result cap but adds no new syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond the schema — 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 verb and resource ('Search Google Maps places (businesses and points of interest) by free-text query'), immediately distinguishing it from generic web search siblings like search_web and from the detail siblings place_details/place_reviews/place_photos. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context — free-text query search, optional geographic bias via lat/lng with zoom — and routes follow-up work explicitly ('Pass a place_id to place_details, place_reviews or place_photos'), which is genuine workflow guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. versus search_web or search_facebook_locations), so it is not a full 5.

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