apple_maps_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and details the output, but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., invalid id handling), any side effects, or limitations. Since it is a straightforward fetch, the lack of additional behavioral notes is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that starts with the core action and then enumerates all returned fields. It is efficient but could be improved by splitting into multiple sentences for readability. Still, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a guide with many fields and nested places), the description covers all returned attributes without an output schema. It also includes the definition of a guide as a curated collection. However, it omits how to discover guide ids, though that is covered in the guide_id parameter description. Overall, sufficiently complete.

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 three parameters (lang, country, guide_id) have descriptive schema entries with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates that a guide is fetched by id. Thus, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('one Apple Guide with its places'), and explicitly lists the content returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apple_maps_guides (which likely lists guides) by specifying retrieval by id. The purpose is 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 implies usage when you have a guide_id (via 'by id'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apple_maps_guides or apple_maps_guides_lookup. There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, leaving the selection inference to the agent.

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