google_map_search

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

The description discloses the rate limit (1 req/sec), adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, there are no annotations, and it does not describe other important behaviors like search result structure or pagination. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for rate limit. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return values, pagination, or result types, which are necessary for a search tool.

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 only parameter, 'mapSearchOption', is described in the schema as 'Search options', which is generic. The description repeats this without adding semantic details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 is a search API for Google Maps that returns results, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings like 'google_map_place' or 'datasets_google_map_businesses_search', which could cause confusion.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'google_map_place' for specific places or 'datasets' tools for business data. The rate limit is mentioned but does not help in choosing between tools.

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