datasets_google_map_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond a simple 'gets a record' by explaining nuanced data semantics: `category` may be localized/non-ASCII, `rating` null vs numeric, `review_count` null vs 0, `geo` null for service-area businesses, and the crucial distinction for `permanently_closed` null meaning unknown (not open) since a specific date. This prevents misinterpretation and provides essential context for data analysis.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the dataset, and then provides crucial field nuances. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The structure is logical and efficient for an agent to parse quickly. The length is justified by the complexity of the data semantics.

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 simple get-by-id tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is extremely complete. It covers not only what the tool does but also explains the meaning of key fields and their null states, and even warns about the unknown status of permanently closed businesses. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 covers the sole parameter (`place_id` with description 'Google Place ID, max 256 characters') at 100% coverage. The description does not add significant new meaning about the parameter itself; it only reiterates that the business is retrieved by place_id. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 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 the action ('Get a stored Google Maps business'), the resource (stored business by place_id), and the dataset enum value. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like datasets_google_map_search and datasets_google_map_facets by focusing on retrieving a single item by ID, making it unambiguous.

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 usage: when you have a specific Google place_id and need the stored business record, use this tool. It clearly indicates the dataset it belongs to. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know this is the get-by-id tool for the google-map-businesses dataset.

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