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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a geospatial scoping note ('near a coordinate') and does not disclose pagination, sort behavior, or the cost of filters/sort on upstream calls (which lives only in the schema).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the action and location, which is efficient. However, the trailing enumeration of eleven return fields is largely redundant given an output schema exists and pads the sentence without adding selection value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the nine parameters including defaults and limits. What is missing is sibling routing (category_search / autocomplete / place detail), which matters given the dense apple_maps family.

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 all nine parameters are fully documented in the schema, including defaults, ranges, and the extra upstream-cost caveats for sort and filters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Apple Maps places) and enumerates the query modes accepted (keyword, business name, category, street address). Scope is clear, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like apple_maps_category_search, apple_maps_places, or apple_maps_autocomplete.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only hint is that a coordinate is required and a query is required, but that is expressed in the schema, not as routing guidance.

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