Search Google Places

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

With no annotations, the description discloses auto-paging up to maxResults, deduplication, source-tracing via googleMapsUrl, and default filters. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or authentication, which are relevant for a read operation.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by context, behavior, and defaults. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors and defaults but does not fully describe the return structure beyond 'deduplicated results with googleMapsUrl'. It could mention pagination token handling or location bias, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds contextual value: explains auto-paging behavior for maxResults, defaults for includedTypes, excludeClosed, regionCode, and the cityFilter's purpose to handle spillover from Google's text search. This goes beyond basic schema descriptions.

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 'Search Google Places (New) Text Search for businesses in an area' and specifies it returns deduplicated results with googleMapsUrl. It distinguishes from siblings like places_detail by framing it as a retrieval primitive for the Restaurant Research Agent.

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?

While the description notes it's 'Designed as a per-round retrieval primitive for the Restaurant Research Agent', it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like places_detail or state when not to use it. Implied usage is present but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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