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 no behavioral context beyond that, such as search scope, result limits, location bias, or authentication requirements.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted length, which is structurally fine. However, the phrase 'for the supplied request body' is unnecessary and confusing, so the sentence does not fully earn 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the 100%-covered input schema documents all parameters. Still, the description omits any usage guidance or sibling differentiation, leaving an agent to infer when this generic Google Maps search is appropriate.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description actively mischaracterizes the parameters as a 'supplied request body' when the schema defines flat fields (country, keyword, language). This misleading framing reduces clarity rather than adding meaning.

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 restates the tool name: 'google_map_search' becomes 'Returns search results from Google Maps,' which is tautological and adds no distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate from siblings such as google_map_place or datasets_google_map_search, and 'for the supplied request body' is confusing since the schema defines flat parameters, not a request body.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent gets no help deciding between this, google_map_place, or the datasets_google_map_search sibling.

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