google_maps_search: GET /

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination via 'start' and the return format, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. While a search is inherently non-destructive, the description could have added more explicit behavioral context.

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 a clear one-line summary followed by a concise explanation of parameters, return values, and use cases. It is efficient without irrelevant details, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 read-only search tool with 6 parameters (only 1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, return fields, parameter roles, and when to use it. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases or limitations, but is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for every parameter. The description adds light context by grouping parameters (e.g., 'optional GPS coordinates' and 'offset-based pagination') and clarifying the purpose of 'll' and 'start', but it does not significantly go beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Get Google Maps Search Results' and 'Runs a Google Maps search by keyword', clearly stating the action and resource. It specifies the output (local pack list with defined fields) and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (reviews, photos, place details) since it is the search entry point.

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 lists explicit use cases ('local lead generation, competitor density mapping, market expansion research, hyperlocal directories') and mentions downstream tools ('feeding placeIds into the Maps Place, Reviews, or Photos endpoints'), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives directly, leaving a small gap.

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