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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are bounded with no pagination, and the search may relocate when the area has no matches (relocated=true). It stops short of describing pagination workarounds or upstream cost implications, keeping it a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core capability and the place-ID linkage come first, the behavioral caveats second, and the sibling routing last — a well front-loaded ordering.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still notes the Apple place ID is consumable by apple_maps_places. Combined with full param coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters in detail (span, sort, filters, limit, country, lang). The description's 'query, business, category, or address' restates what the query param already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) with scope (near a coordinate) and accepted query forms (business, category, address). Explicitly contrasts itself with apple_maps_autocomplete and apple_maps_category_search, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Names two alternatives and the exact condition that selects each ('for typeahead', 'for category-focused results'). Nothing about when to prefer this tool over siblings is left to inference.

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