datasets_google_map_facets

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool returns but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it modifies data, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. As a read-only aggregation tool, it should at least imply it's read-only.

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?

Two short sentences with minimal waste. Could be slightly improved by rewording the first sentence for clarity, but overall efficient.

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 is too minimal. It doesn't explain how aggregation works, the structure of the response, or how filters like radius or sort affect results. An agent needs more context to use this tool effectively.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the facet enum, which is already in the schema. 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 facets stored Google Maps businesses and returns terms aggregation counts. The facet enum is listed, giving an idea of what dimensions are available. However, the verb 'facet' is somewhat vague, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like datasets_google_map_search.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't specify when to use faceting versus searching, or what the aggregation results are useful for. An agent would have to infer context from the name and parameters.

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