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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses pricing per call, payment method (USDC on Base), no account/API key, the exact fields returned, tuning options, and explicitly states that zero results is a valid honest answer. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but well organized, front-loading the tool's purpose and differentiating value before moving to parameters and behavioral notes. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a read-only places lookup with no output schema, the description covers what a caller needs: input, tuning parameters, response fields, pricing, payment, and the zero-result edge case. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters. The description adds context that num/country/lang tune results and that query is plain text, but it does not add new parameter semantics 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 opens with 'Google Places (local businesses with rating, address and phone number) for AI agents', giving a specific resource and intent. It clearly states the action (send a query, get back JSON) and differentiates from generic web search by naming local businesses and the shared source with /web/search.

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 establishes a clear context: use when you need local business results with address, rating, phone, or website. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names an alternative tool, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not guidance required for a 5.

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