maps_search_places

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the query is free-text and that location only 'biases' rather than strictly filters results, which is useful. However, it does not mention what is returned, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations such as pagination or result ordering. Some behavioral context is provided, but the gaps are noticeable.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by the key modifier about location bias. There is no redundant or filler language; the description is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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 schema covers parameter constraints, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching places). It also does not mention the dependency that longitude and latitude must be provided together when using radius, though the schema hints at this. The description is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for full usage clarity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage, documenting each parameter's meaning. The description adds only a summary phrase ('optionally biased to a location') that restates what the schema already says about latitude/longitude and radius. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('places'), with clarifying examples ('restaurants, businesses, landmarks'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like geocoding and place details: it is a free-text place search, not an address-to-coordinate lookup or a details retrieval.

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 implies usage context: use when you want to find places via a natural-language query, possibly with a location bias. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases like structured address lookups (which would belong to geocoding) or retrieving detailed info for a known place. The guidance is present only by implication, not explicit.

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