maps_place_id_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses the Geocoding API, returns address/coordinates, and explicitly lists fields it does NOT return. No contradictions. It stops short of detailing rate limits or exact return structure, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a useful efficiency/caveat comparison. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, limitations, and expected result (address and coordinates). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, with both place_id and language described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves a place ID to address and coordinates via the Geocoding API, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling maps_place_details by noting it is cheaper but returns fewer fields.

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 provides when-to-use guidance by comparing to maps_place_details: use when only location is needed, and avoid when opening hours, phone, rating, or website are required. This directly helps the agent choose between tools.

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