apple_maps_venue_browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two distinct response modes, that category results share the 'same summary shape as search', and exact error behaviors (404 for no directory, 400 for unknown category with available categories listed). This is exemplary transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return-shape details, then error handling. Every sentence earns its place and the length is proportional to the tool's complexity.

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 browse tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers both call modes, the expected output shape (referencing search), prerequisite steps (finding the venue via search), and all documented error cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal semantics by clarifying that category refers to directory entries and place_id should come from the search endpoint, but it does not meaningfully extend schema-provided meaning. 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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Browse the stores and places inside a venue') and clearly distinguishes two operating modes: returning the venue directory, and returning places for a given category. It differentiates this tool from siblings like apple_maps_search and apple_maps_place by scoping to indoor venues and their directories.

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 gives clear routing guidance ('Find venues with the search endpoint') and explains when a venue is unsuitable (404 for places without a directory). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the context — browsing indoor venue directories — is unambiguous enough to select this tool correctly.

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