Maps Search Places

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations. It does not mention scope, result behavior, filtering, or anything else that would help an agent understand side effects or constraints.

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 short but wastes its words on metadata instead of content. It is under-specified rather than usefully concise, and provides no front-loaded operational information.

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?

Even though annotations and an output schema exist, the description is insufficient to tell an agent what queryingredient is expected, what limit controls, or how this differs from the strict sibling. For a search tool, a clear 'search Apple Maps for places matching a query' would be the minimum context needed.

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 needed to explain query and limit semantics but does not mention either parameter. The tool name implies a search, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's field names and types.

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 merely restates the tool name and says it is 'Delegated' and 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'. It contains no verb or resource indicating what the tool actually does, so it is essentially tautological.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apple_maps_search_places_strict, maps_get_directions, or maps_build_maps_link. The agent can only infer usage from the tool name, not from the description.

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