search_dining

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 use of pinned, billing-safe field masks (cost control), profile steering behavior, and Google ToS attribution pass-through. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover rate limits or return format.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence provides functional value without redundancy.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, API source, profile steering, billing safety, and attribution requirements. Parameter constraints are handled in the schema (e.g., destination/nearCoordinates orthogonality, maxResults bounds). Minor gaps exist around output shape and edge-case behavior, but overall it supports correct usage.

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 description adds semantic value to the key required parameter 'profile' by explaining it influences cuisine and price levels. Schema coverage is 60% (destination, priceLevels, nearCoordinates have descriptions), so the description compensates for the otherwise undocumented 'profile' behavior.

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 verb ('Search') and the resource ('restaurants/POIs') and specifies the underlying API ('Google Places API (New)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_stays' and 'search_activities' by explicitly targeting dining/POI search.

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 that this tool is for restaurant/POI search and that the 'profile' parameter steers cuisine type and price levels. It implicitly differentiates from alternatives by content, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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