Find a Google Business Profile

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free and the payload yields place_id values for chaining. No contradiction. Rate limits and result caps remain undisclosed, so not a 5.

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 action, then the return value, then the cost flag. The one-word 'Free.' earns its place as a routing signal, though the sentence fragments are slightly clipped.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does name place_id as the key output. However it omits the language parameter, result-count/pagination behavior, and any limits, leaving meaningful gaps 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry full parameter burden. It hints that 'query' covers name and city, but gives no format guidance, and the 'language' parameter is not mentioned at all. It compensates only partially for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Google Maps listings by name and city') and names the downstream sibling it feeds ('place_id values to use with run_grid'). An agent can distinguish this discovery step from run_grid/get_grid without opening any schema.

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?

Implies the workflow position explicitly: call this first to obtain place_id values, then pass them to run_grid. The 'Free' note also signals a cost trade-off against paid siblings like estimate_grid/get_balance. No explicit when-not guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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