maps_place_details

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 clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the include_reviews parameter raising the billing tier, and it enumerates the default fields returned. It does not contradict annotations, and while it does not detail error behavior or output structure, the added cost disclosure goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is three tightly packed sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and result fields, the second adds a key cost caveat, and the third explains the prerequisite source of place IDs. No filler or redundancy—every sentence earns 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?

For a read-only details tool with high schema coverage and informative annotations, the description is complete. It states the purpose, lists the default return fields, warns about the cost of include_reviews, and tells the user where to obtain the required place_id. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key returned content, and the schema covers parameters fully.

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 every parameter (place_id, fields, region_code, language_code, include_reviews) already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it merely repeats the include_reviews cost note already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Full detail for one place ID' followed by a concrete list of returned fields (address components, phone numbers, website, opening hours, rating, business status). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the place ID must come from maps_search_places, maps_search_nearby, maps_geocode, or maps_place_autocomplete, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a place ID from one of the listed search/geocode/autocomplete tools and need full details. It also gives usage guidance about include_reviews costing more, implying it should only be set when reviews are truly needed. However, it does not explicitly compare against the sibling maps_place_id_lookup, so exclusion of alternatives is not fully addressed.

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