google_map_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It contributes one genuinely useful behavioral trait—the 1-request-per-second rate limit—which an agent can use to throttle calls. It does not disclose the result format, pagination behavior, or whether results are place objects, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 compact at three short sentences, but the opening 'Google Maps search API' restates the tool name and adds no information, and the middle sentence echoes 'Google Maps' again. The useful content (purpose and rate limit) is present but mildly redundant, so not every sentence fully earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling set containing google_map_place and datasets_google_map_search, the description is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps. It explains that the tool searches and returns results and discloses the rate limit, but an agent cannot tell what the returned results look like, whether pagination exists, or how this search relates to the place-detail sibling.

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 schema already documents the single mapSearchOption parameter and its nested fields, making the baseline 3. The description's phrase 'based on search options' adds no meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify that keyword is the query term, how country scopes results, or what language codes are expected.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Returns results from Google Maps based on search options'), making clear it is a search operation over Google Maps data. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as google_map_place or datasets_google_map_search, so an agent must infer differences from tool names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied—it reads as a search tool for Google Maps results, so an agent can infer it applies when map search results are needed. It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative tools despite close siblings like google_map_place and datasets_google_map_search existing in the sibling set.

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