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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Each page returns up to 10 results'), optional geographic biasing, and the return data fields. This is solid coverage for a read-only search tool, though it omits details like rate limits or failure modes.

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 exactly three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value. It lists return fields, notes geographic biasing, and states pagination in a compact, readable format.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It lists the key return fields, explains the optional bias mechanism, and notes page size. It does not cover edge cases or limits, but for a search tool this is adequate context.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a modest group-level semantic for lat/lng/zoom ('bias results by geographic center') and reiterates pagination, but does not introduce meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches Google Maps places (local businesses, points of interest) via free-text query, and enumerates the return fields. This specific verb-resource-scope pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_web or place_details.

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 implies usage for finding places on Google Maps, and the geographic bias option gives a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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