apple_maps_places

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that missing requested IDs are returned in the response and that external and numeric ID forms are accepted interchangeably. However, it omits error behavior, rate limits, and output structure details, which is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 main action is front-loaded and the overall length is reasonable. However, the second sentence largely repeats 'full detail', 'up to 20', and the one-call idea from the first sentence, and the truncated phrase 'external I... form' slightly damages clarity.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It explains the batch limit, equivalence to the place endpoint, reporting of missing IDs, and accepted ID forms, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It does not spell out the exact response shape, but the reference to 'same full detail as the place endpoint' partially compensates.

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 documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that the external ID form and numeric ID are accepted interchangeably, which is not apparent from the parameter names or descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('Get full detail') and resource ('Apple Maps places'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the singular apple_maps_place tool by emphasizing batch retrieval of up to 20 places in one call. The reference to 'same full detail as the place endpoint' reinforces what it does without requiring schema inspection.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have multiple place IDs and want their full details in a single call. It does not explicitly exclude single-place lookups or name an alternative tool, but the batch framing and 'place endpoint' reference provide enough contextual guidance.

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