Google Maps Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a retrieval and mentions sorting and topic filtering capabilities, but it says nothing about identifier precedence among the three optional identifiers (dataId, placeId, query), fallback resolution, or read-safety guarantees, leaving important behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single 13-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and wastes no words. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the expense of usage guidance and behavioral depth, making it slightly under-sized for a 7-parameter tool with five siblings.

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 output schema covers return values and the input schema covers parameters at 100%, so those gaps are closed by structured data. However, with no annotations and five siblings including a near-duplicate (google_maps_contributor_reviews), the 13-word description is too thin to let an agent confidently select and invoke the tool; it lacks usage differentiation and behavioral context.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters with defaults and relationships (e.g., query as 'fallback if ID is not available'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond pointing at sorting and topic filtering, which map directly to sortBy and topicId, so the 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('review feed for a place'), and adds capability modifiers (sorting, topic filtering) that tell the agent what the tool can do. The phrase 'for a place' implies a distinction from the google_maps_contributor_reviews sibling, but that differentiation is implicit rather than explicitly named, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, a notable gap given five siblings including the closely related google_maps_contributor_reviews and google_maps_place_details. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided; the agent must infer the use case from the single phrase 'for a place.'

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