datasets_google_map_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several important data quirks: category may be localized/non-ASCII/punctuated, rating null means no rating, review_count null vs 0 distinction, and geo null for locationless businesses. These details go well beyond a basic 'get item' description.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence provides distinct and valuable behavioral details (category, rating, review_count, geo) without being verbose or repetitive.

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 no output schema, the description explains key nuances of returned fields (category, rating, review_count, geo) but does not enumerate all fields. This is a strong, concise coverage of the most likely confusing aspects, making it more complete than a minimal 'Returns a business' description.

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 place_id parameter with a clear description ('Google Place ID, max 256 characters'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves a stored Google Maps business by Google place_id, specifically from the `google-map-businesses` dataset. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and distinguishes it from search/facets/nearby siblings by emphasizing 'stored' and 'by place_id'.

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 clear usage context: use this when you have a place_id and need a single stored business item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'stored' and 'by place_id' provide enough context to differentiate from search or nearby tools.

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