search_google_maps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns structured place data listing 10 fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, API quota implications, or any constraints on search frequency or result freshness. The behavioral disclosure is 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It then lists the return fields, which is useful but slightly verbose for a search tool. It earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 low complexity (4 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the search scope and return fields. It could be improved by noting that results are limited by Google's ranking (not just the limit parameter) and how to formulate effective queries beyond the examples.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It lists the return fields but not how parameters affect them. Since the schema is already thorough, no penalty is applied.

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 uses specific verbs ('Search') and resources ('Google Maps for local businesses, places, points of interest, and services'), clearly distinguishing it from its sibling tool 'get_place_details' which would provide details on a specific place.

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 implies this tool is for broad searches (businesses, places, POIs), and the sibling tool name 'get_place_details' suggests the alternative for specific place info. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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