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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: a rate limit of one request per second and the shape of returned data. That extra operational detail is exactly the value the description should add.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then inputs, then rate limit, then sibling routing – a sensible priority order with little waste. The 'Supply a query such as...' sentence overlaps somewhat with the schema examples and could be trimmed, keeping it from a 5.

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 3-parameter search with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the description supplies inputs, the rate-limit constraint, and explicit sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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%, with each of the three parameters already documented including examples ('us', 'hotel san francisco', 'en'). The description's example sentence largely restates the schema examples and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so 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+resource ('Search Google Maps for places'), specifies the input (keyword) and enumerates the returned fields (place identifiers, names, categories, addresses, rating data). It clearly distinguishes itself from google_map_place and datasets_google_map_search by name.

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 to alternatives: 'Use google_map_place to inspect one returned place or datasets_google_map_search for indexed business records.' This tells the agent when a sibling is the better fit. It does not state explicit exclusions for this tool itself, so it falls just short of the top score.

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