datasets_google_map_facets

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

The description discloses that the output is aggregation counts and lists the facet enum with an example for category values. However, it does not explain how other parameters (e.g., q, lat, lon) interact with faceting, nor does it mention any side effects, data freshness, or rate limits. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, but it only partially fulfills it.

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 three sentences and front-loads the purpose. It is relatively concise, though the first sentence is grammatically awkward ('Facet stored Google Maps businesses'). No unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved.

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?

Given the tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format beyond 'terms aggregation counts', nor does it clarify how the many filter parameters affect the aggregation. Key behavioral context is missing, making the tool harder to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining that category values are Google Maps type tokens in snake_case, but this is already present in the schema's description for the category parameter. It does not provide new insight beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 that the tool returns 'terms aggregation counts' for Google Maps businesses, and lists the available facet fields. However, the phrasing 'Facet stored Google Maps businesses' is grammatically awkward and could be misread as a noun phrase rather than an action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like datasets_google_map_search or datasets_google_map_item. The agent must infer from the output type that this is for aggregate counts, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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