Apple Suggest Places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the behavioral context that this is a completion fallback and that it draws on current Apple data surfaces, but it does not disclose limitations such as whether suggestions are unvalidated, how data freshness works, or whether results are purely local. This is adequate but not rich.

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—two sentences with no redundant filler. The completion-fallback context is useful and placed in the second sentence, though the first sentence is somewhat tautological with the tool name and could have been more informative. Overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 in a large family of suggest_* and maps_search_* tools, the description omits the key selection criteria: when to choose apple_suggest_places over apple_maps_search_places_strict or maps_search_places. It also does not clarify what 'current Apple data surfaces' includes or how query and limit shape results. The presence of an output schema helps, but the operational context is still incomplete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining query and limit. It does not explicitly define query as the partial place-name fragment or limit as the maximum number of suggestions. The 'completion fallback' phrase implies a query-to-suggestions relationship, but the semantics are left largely to inference.

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 operation is 'Suggest Places' using Apple data surfaces and clarifies it is a completion fallback, which gives some sense of purpose beyond the tool name. However, it is vague about what 'current Apple data surfaces' means and does not explicitly say it returns autocomplete-style place suggestions for a partial query. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools like apple_maps_search_places_strict or maps_search_places.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this tool as a completion fallback for clients that lack MCP completion support. This is a specific when-to-use signal. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer a strict place search instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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