google-maps-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does indicate a non-mutating search action and describes the output, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential concerns such as network/API dependencies, rate limits, or behavior when no results match, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the return fields. Every element contributes meaning and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 straightforward search tool, the description plus the 100%-covered schema is nearly complete: intended use, input requirements, and output fields are all covered. It falls slightly short of 5 only because it omits any caveats or edge-case behavior, which could matter in a no-output-schema, no-annotation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents searchQueries, maxResults, and language adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('Google Maps'), and defines the scope ('businesses/places by keyword and location'), then lists the concrete fields returned. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, even with no sibling tools to contrast against.

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 phrase 'by keyword and location' clarifies the intended input pattern, and the returned-field list signals when the tool is useful. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tools named, but with no sibling tools provided, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for place discovery queries.

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