search_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches and returns data, but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the fact that results may be limited. The description is sufficient for a simple search but lacks depth.

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 consists of two short sentences that convey the purpose and output without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the types of data returned (names, addresses, ratings, etc.). However, it does not mention result limits, pagination, or how to interpret the 'other details'. Still, it provides sufficient context for a search tool.

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 minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'based on location and keywords' is a paraphrase). It does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples.

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 tool searches for nearby places based on location and keywords, and it lists the type of data returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_place_details (which retrieves details for a specific place) and geocode_address (which converts addresses to coordinates).

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 when to use (searching for places by location and keywords) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool like get_place_details or reverse_geocode. No alternatives are mentioned.

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