search_places

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the cost tradeoff versus get_maplet, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about return shape (names only, or with type/distance?), result ordering, or how radius/limit affect recall, so an agent cannot predict output.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling comparison as a secondary clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the sibling tradeoff but leaves output content and the radius/limit behavior unexplained. Adequate to call the tool, not adequate to predict what comes back.

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 only 20% — just the `query` property is documented — and the description does not compensate. It never mentions that limit defaults to 20 or that radiusM defaults to 300m, a value that materially constrains results; only lat/lon are implied by "near a coordinate".

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus resource (named places) with concrete examples and a spatial scope (near a coordinate). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_maplet, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

"Cheaper than get_maplet when only names are needed" names the alternative and the condition that selects it, implying get_maplet is for richer detail. It gives no guidance on the other siblings (route, localize, expand_feature), but the core routing decision is covered.

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