google_maps_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format and fields, but lacks information on error handling, rate limits, authentication, or what happens if no place is found. The credit note is vague.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. The credit note is slightly extraneous, but overall it's efficient and provides necessary detail in a readable format.

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 the number of parameters (4), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It explains the input parameters' relationships, describes the output fields in detail, and covers the core functionality adequately for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the alternative required-parameter paths (type+data_id vs place_id) and clarifying that place_id can be used independently, which goes beyond the schema's field 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 the tool retrieves a complete business profile for a specific Google Maps location, with explicit details on what fields are included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_maps_search (which returns lists) and other specific data tools.

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 explains two lookup modes (type+data_id vs place_id) and clarifies the parameter requirements. While it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives, the context and sibling tool names imply it's for individual place details after a search.

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