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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write/side-effecting profile is covered. The description adds that work is submitted as a 'Builder task' (asynchronous job) rather than returning data inline, but omits how/when results become available and whether submission consumes quota.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the triggering conditions and then the capability with mode names. It is compact and wastes little space, though the opening keyword enumeration is a style choice that trades readability for trigger coverage.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema task-submission tool, the description covers what is submitted and the four modes, but says nothing about the async lifecycle or that results must be fetched via scraper_task_status/scraper_task_result. That retrieval path is a meaningful omission for an agent trying to complete a workflow.

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 10 parameters is already documented with its mode association and defaults. The description's enumeration of the four spider modes only restates what spider_id's enum and per-parameter descriptions already convey, adding no syntax or constraint detail 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?

It states a concrete action (submit a Google Maps details collection task) and enumerates the four collection modes (by-url, by-cid, by-location, by-placeid), which distinguishes it from siblings like google_maps or google_map_comment. The opening trigger list is keyword-stuffed rather than a clean statement of purpose, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other Google Maps siblings.

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 trigger clause (when a user needs Google Maps info combined with scrape/crawl/fetch verbs) and the instruction to select a mode matching user intent give implied usage guidance. However, no alternative tool is named as the right choice in other situations, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance versus google_maps or google_local.

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