Google Maps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a cost model of '1 credit per call'. It does not disclose result caps, pagination depth limits, or rate limits, which matter for an open-world search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the cost note. The leading 'Google Maps.' fragment merely restates the title and could be dropped, but overall there is almost no wasted text.

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?

For a nine-parameter open-world search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, likely return content, and cost, which is adequate to call it. It omits pagination/result-count limits and any routing guidance against its numerous search siblings, leaving real gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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 all nine parameters (cr, gl, hl, ll, lr, page, query, fields, google_domain) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or semantics for any of them; its only related contribution is naming likely returned fields, which the schema's 'fields' parameter already covers.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Search Google Maps via API') and names the return content (address, website, phone), so an agent knows it is a place/local-business lookup rather than a web search. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling search tools (google_search, google_search_light, brave_search), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to prefer this over google_search, google_search_light, or the finder_google_* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the mention of 'structured place results', which an agent must infer means local/business lookups.

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