google_maps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results include addresses, ratings, hours, and coordinates, and that the tool is for location-bound queries, which implies a read-only search behavior. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or localization nuances, but the schema covers those details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return data (addresses, ratings, hours, coordinates). It also mentions the typical use cases, though it doesn't cover all param nuances; those are in the schema, so the overall picture is solid.

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?

All six parameters have thorough schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, though the example query in the schema ('coffee shops in Athlone') is echoed in the description's 'location-bound question'.

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 the verb 'Search' with the resource 'Google Maps for places and local businesses', and lists specific output data (addresses, ratings, hours, coordinates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like google_news or google_shopping, which target other content types.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this for "near me", "where can I", or any location-bound question,' giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not name alternative tools for non-location queries or state explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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