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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: the "[read · spend]" cost signal, the 20-places-per-page cap, and the account-resolution default (caller's first keyed service account, whose Cloud project must have Places API enabled). It omits error behavior and quota limits, keeping it below a 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?

Front-loads the read/spend tag and the resource description, then a compact per-parameter block and a one-line return shape. The `param = value` notation is dense but efficient; nothing is wasted, though the wording is terse enough to be slightly clipped.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description states the response shape {places, next_page_token}, and it covers pagination, pagination continuity, localization, and account selection. What remains thin is failure-mode guidance (missing key, API not enabled) for a tool that depends on external credentials.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all six parameters — and it does, defining text_query, language_code, region_code, page_token, and both gservice_account_id and gservice_account_uuid with format examples, defaults, and the prerequisite on the account's Cloud project. This is exactly the compensation a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 and resource (Google Maps business search via Places API) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what data it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `search_maps_places`, which sounds like the same capability, leaving the agent to guess which to choose.

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?

Usage is implied through worked parameter examples ("dentist in Kadikoy", "tr", "TR") and the pagination recipe (page_token from the previous call's next_page_token), which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing advice versus `search_maps_places` or `list_gservice_maps_accounts`.

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