google_maps_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search capability but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with external API integration, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second provides basic usage context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit separation of functionality and constraints.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter search tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (formats, fields, limitations), nor does it address authentication, rate limits, or error scenarios. For a Google Maps API integration, users need more context about result structure and API constraints.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'text query or nearby location' which corresponds to the 'query' and 'location' parameters but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, defaults, or best practices.

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's purpose: 'Search for places using Google Maps Platform' with examples like 'restaurants, shops, landmarks'. It specifies the action (search) and resource (places), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'google_maps_directions' or 'kakao_maps_search' beyond mentioning the Google Maps Platform.

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 minimal usage guidance, stating it can search 'by text query or nearby location'. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'google_maps_geocode' or 'tmap_poi', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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