get_place_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the lookup behavior (by ID or name) and the return fields (address, phone, etc.), but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the place is not found. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the key purpose, parameter usage, and return value hints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error behavior), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two formats for the 'place' parameter (Google Place ID vs. name/location), which goes beyond the schema's description. This additional context justifies a 4.

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 specifies the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information for a single specific Google Maps place or business'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_google_maps' by emphasizing single-place lookup vs. searching.

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 when to use this tool (to get details for a known place via ID or name) and implicitly distinguishes from searching. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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