google_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only that data is fetched, without addressing return format, pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The phrase 'Get Google Maps data' implies a read operation, but no confirmatory details are given.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and highlights the optional coordinate feature. It contains no filler, earning a strong score, though it is brief enough to omit some valuable context.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description gives no indication of what 'Google Maps data' includes, whether it returns structured records, has limits, or handles errors. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand expected response semantics.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description echoes the optional coordinate behavior already present in the schema but adds nothing beyond that, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves Google Maps data based on a location query with an optional coordinate filter. It is specific in verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like google_places or google_serp, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as google_places or google_serp. The description offers only the tool's function and no contextual prerequisites or exclusions.

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