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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that results include names, addresses, ratings, reviews, and contact info, which is useful but not deep behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits). With annotations providing the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up guidance is placed at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and the natural next step. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, but the schema documents the page parameter. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and know what to do with results.

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% for all 3 parameters, so the schema already explains q, gl, and page. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'local businesses and places on Google Maps', distinguishing it from general web search and the sibling google_maps_place which is for detailed place info. It lists the return fields (names, addresses, ratings, reviews, contact info), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use google_maps_place with data_id or place_id from results for detailed place information, which is a clear when-to-use-next guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like google_search_light for general web queries, so it's slightly incomplete but still useful.

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