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 one useful behavioral detail ('business matches include place summaries'), but discloses nothing about rate limits, result counts, or auth. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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 tight clauses: purpose first, then alternative routing. Every sentence carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, open-world autocomplete tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and disambiguation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 six parameters (query, latitude, longitude, span, lang, country) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Fetch), resource (Apple Maps address and business suggestions), and scope (partial query near a coordinate). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from apple_maps_search and apple_maps_place at a glance.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: apple_maps_search for full search results and apple_maps_place for a known place ID. Combined with the 'partial query' scoping in the first sentence, the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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