datasets_google_map_businesses_facets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'returns terms aggregation counts' but does not explain how other parameters (q, category, etc.) filter the aggregations, whether results are paginated, or any limits. It adds minimal transparency beyond the enum list.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, ~30 words) and front-loaded with the core action 'Facet stored Google Maps businesses.' Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With 16 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context on how filters (e.g., q, category, lat/lon) affect the facet counts, or hint at typical use cases (e.g., building a drill-down UI). It is incomplete for a complex tool despite good coverage elsewhere.

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 input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds the overall purpose ('returns aggregation counts') but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states it returns terms aggregation counts for Google Maps businesses, listing the specific facet enums (category, country, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like datasets_google_map_businesses_search (which returns business details) and datasets_google_map_businesses_item (single item).

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 use when aggregation counts are needed (e.g., for a faceted navigation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search vs. facet). No exclusions or context for combining with other tools.

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