Run several grids at once

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: credit cost per grid point, refund on failure, upfront refusal when balance is insufficient, concurrency of 10 slots, and the wait_seconds truncation semantics. These are exactly the kind of cost, throttling and timing traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Four dense sentences, each front-loaded with the fact that matters most (batch size, shape constraint, cost, then wait behavior and follow-up call). No filler or repetition.

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?

Covers return semantics (partial batch plus get_batch), cost, failure and timing for a tool with no output schema. It is close to complete, with the remaining gap being the six unexplained geographic and size parameters.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 8 parameters, the description must carry the load. It does explain the items structure (place_id or query, plus required keyword) and wait_seconds behavior, but leaves size, shape, country, density, language and radius_km entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates.

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 with scope: 'Run up to 50 grids in one call.' The batch constraint ('all with the same format: one listing with several keywords, or several listings with one keyword') makes it immediately distinguishable from the single-grid sibling run_grid without opening either 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?

Gives the operating condition (batch shape must be homogeneous) and routes to the alternative for the remainder of results ('call get_batch for the rest'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer run_grid over run_grids for a single grid, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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