Google Maps Search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the useful ranking behavior ('Ranked as Google Maps ranks them') and 'Search' implies a read-only lookup, but it does not address potential limitations, result scope, or any external API constraints. Still, it provides some meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a distinct behavioral detail rather than repeating the tool name or schema.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the input schema, the description is sufficient for a basic search tool. It could optionally mention how to proceed to details or reviews, but the sibling tool names supply that 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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults for gl, hl, ll, and start. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 the tool's action ('Search Google Maps') and its object ('places matching a query'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch details, reviews, photos, or posts. The added note about ranking as Google Maps ranks them further clarifies the expected result ordering.

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 makes the primary use case clear: find places by query. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like place_details, but the search-specific wording and sibling tool names imply the appropriate context without ambiguity.

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