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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that Google Maps needs JavaScript, that an unrendered response returns `upstream_blocked` rather than a silent empty success, that such calls are not charged, and the 5-credit cost. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a metered network call.

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?

Four tight sentences with the purpose, return fields, and the critical failure-mode caveat front-loaded. The opening clause slightly restates the title, but 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (name, address, phone, rating, hours) plus the failure mode and cost. Pagination behavior via the `start` offset is unaddressed, which is the main remaining gap for a 10-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents gl, hl, tld, uule, start, and the coordinate params; the description only reinforces that lat/long is the search centre. It adds no meaning for the geo-targeting or pagination parameters, so 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 ("Google Maps place search") and scopes it to "business listings near a coordinate", which implicitly separates it from the textual google_search sibling. It does not name google_search or google_shopping explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 "near a coordinate" plus the required lat/long signals when this is appropriate (local business discovery), and the cost/blocking note helps the agent decide. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for non-local lookups, leaving routing to inference.

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