apple_maps_place

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the full payload, including the nuance that review snippets omit reviewer identity, and notes the two accepted ID formats. It doesn't cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only get operation the output enumeration is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then uses a structured list to enumerate return fields. It is longer than necessary but every clause adds informational value and there is no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's detailed enumeration of returned fields is essential and it delivers that. It also explains both accepted input ID forms, making the tool callable without further research. Minor omissions like not-found behavior are acceptable for a single-item getter.

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 already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the same ID-format explanation the description repeats. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Apple Maps place's full detail.' It then enumerates the complete set of returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like apple_maps_place_photos (photos only) and apple_maps_places (plural list) by scoping to a single place's full detail.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single place once an ID is known, and it explicitly notes the ID can come from a search result. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the right use case.

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