google_maps_photos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes retrieval behavior, optional filtering, pagination mechanism, and return format. No mention of side effects or authentication, but for a read-only tool, it's sufficiently transparent.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose upfront, then notes and return format. The credit note is minor but not excessive. Every sentence provides value; could be slightly shorter but remains efficient.

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 no output schema, the description provides a good summary of return structure and pagination. Covers category filter workflow. Lacks error handling or limits, but is fairly complete for a photo retrieval tool.

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 substantial meaning: explains how to obtain and use category_id, notes data_id origin from search endpoint, and describes next_page_token usage. This goes well beyond the 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 it retrieves photos for a Google Maps location using a data_id, with optional category filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like google_maps_search and google_maps_reviews, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit instructions for category filtering (two-step process) and pagination (cursor-based with ready-made URL). Mentions data_id source from google_maps_search. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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