apple_maps_place_photos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ordering behavior (cover photo first, then hero, then categorized), the cap difference from the place endpoint, and the inclusion of category, width, and height. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool the disclosed behavior 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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and packs the ordering and return details efficiently. Every clause adds information; 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return ordering and the cap difference. It could mention whether the response includes URLs or metadata, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about lang, country, or place_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List every photo Apple Maps carries for a place') and a clear resource (place photos). It also differentiates from the sibling apple_maps_place by noting the place endpoint caps at 20, and from google_map_place_photos by the Apple Maps scope. The return structure is explicitly described.

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 when to use this tool: when you need all photos for a place, especially beyond the 20-photo cap of the place endpoint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools like apple_maps_place and apple_maps_places makes the use case clear. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' statement.

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