Apple Maps Search Places Strict

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

The read-only and idempotent hints are already covered by annotations, but the description adds context beyond them by stating that the tool fails closed when the Maps helper is unavailable. This is a useful behavioral trait that affects invocation expectations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler: it front-loads the core action, specifies the backend, and captures the critical failure behavior. Every element contributes to invocation understanding.

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 search tool, the description plus annotations and output schema cover the basics: read-only, idempotent, fail-closed search with query and optional limit. However, it lacks explicit alternatives guidance and does not clarify what fail closed means in practice (error vs. empty result), leaving some invocation ambiguity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's property names and default. The query and limit parameters are simple, but the description does not clarify accepted formats, semantics of limit, or any constraints. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 identifies the action: search places through Apple Maps. It also adds a meaningful distinguishing behavior—fail closed if the Maps helper is unavailable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling maps_search_places, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 fail-closed behavior implies this is the version to use when availability guarantees matter, which is a useful usage signal. But the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over maps_search_places or other alternatives. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than fully specified.

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