maps_search_places

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 behavioral nuance: results are 'biased' toward the area, not strictly confined, and mentions pagination via nextPageToken. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose, examples, return info, and usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers the core return fields, bias behavior, pagination, and differentiates from the sibling tool. While it doesn't enumerate all filters (e.g., open_now, price_levels), the schema provides those details. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, this is a strong description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that latitude/longitude/radius_meters are a 'bias' and that nextPageToken enables paging, clarifying semantics that go beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search places by free-form text' with concrete examples like 'vegan restaurant in Bern'. It clearly distinguishes from maps_search_nearby by contrasting bias vs. strict radius, and mentions the return fields, 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 explicitly states when to use this tool and when to use the alternative: 'Use maps_search_nearby instead when the search must stay strictly inside a radius.' It also explains how to bias results and paginate, providing actionable usage context.

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