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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting it returns 'names, addresses, Google ratings, distances' and requires a 'Google Maps API key'. No behavioral contradictions exist.

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 concise (4 lines), front-loaded with example query patterns, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description is not required to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage guidance, data quality, and authentication. It is sufficiently complete for a search tool with good annotation coverage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions and examples. The description does not add further parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses clear verbs like 'find' and specifies the resource as 'nearby businesses and points of interest via Google Maps Places'. It provides concrete examples ('Find restaurants / hotels / coffee shops') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'maps_place_details' by explicitly offering search rather than 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?

It advises when to use this tool over alternatives ('Use over Yelp/OSM when you want Google's POI coverage and ratings'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for place details), but the examples and context imply the appropriate scope.

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