submit_area_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — active duplicate queries share a task and completed retries may hit cached data — which explains the non-idempotent hint. It stops short of stating any authorization, quota, or cost implications of the submission.

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?

Labeled sections (Use when / Do not use when / Requires / Returns / Follow-up) put the decision criteria first and keep every line functional. The final 'plan_stargazing_session for decisions' phrase is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers the async lifecycle, dedupe/caching semantics, and required inputs, and an output schema exists so return-shape detail is not needed. The only omission is an explicit statement of how this differs from 'analysis_area', which an agent choosing between the two would want.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is effectively nil (one 'request' property with no description), but the nested AreaAnalysisRequest and GeoBounds fields are individually documented. The description only restates that bounds is required and repeats the 1-100 max_locations bound already enforced by the schema, adding little beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submit bounded background place analysis') and states the return ('task identifier'), so the async submit role is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'analysis_area' (the presumable synchronous variant), which is the one remaining disambiguation gap.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses with concrete conditions (long-running place search vs. polling an existing task vs. needing a final decision). The Follow-up line routes the agent to get_area_analysis_task, get_area_analysis_result, cancel_area_analysis_task, and plan_stargazing_session by lifecycle stage.

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