Google Maps Place Details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only fetch and 'in full' suggests comprehensive detail, but the description does not explain what happens when multiple identifiers are supplied, whether query performs a lookup and picks the top result, or what 'full' excludes (e.g., reviews/photos are separate tools). This is a notable gap but the core read behavior is communicated.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of input options. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or 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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no required fields, yet the description does not tell the agent that at least one lookup key must be provided, nor how to prioritize between placeId, dataId, and query. The output schema covers return values, but the description alone leaves the invocation rules underspecified.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the three lookup keys but adds no syntax, format, or precedence information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('one place in full'), and the three lookup methods (placeId, dataId, search query). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_maps_search (which returns multiple results) and google_maps_reviews/photos/posts (which return sub-resources).

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 provides clear context: use this when you need full details for a single place and already have a placeId, dataId, or can supply a search query. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and tool name make the use case obvious.

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