get_place_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '獲取' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes '詳細資訊' (detailed information) in the response. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external APIs.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what '詳細資訊' includes (e.g., address, coordinates, ratings), potential authentication needs, or error handling. Given the likely complexity of interacting with Google Maps APIs and the lack of structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'placeId' clearly documented as 'Google Maps 地點 ID'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('獲取' meaning 'get/fetch') and the resource ('特定地點的詳細資訊' meaning 'specific place's detailed information'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools like 'search_nearby' or 'maps_geocode', which might also provide place information in different contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_nearby' and 'maps_geocode' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for looking up known place IDs versus searching by name or coordinates, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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