maps_expand_opening_hours

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool verifies only the expansion state, does not return or harvest weekly hours data, and revalidates expectedLabel immediately before activating exactly one observed hours control. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: scope, validation/activation behavior, non-return of data, and prerequisite.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, validation behavior, and non-return of data. It could be more complete by explaining what Interactive Assist is or what expectedLabel should look like, but overall it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by explaining that expectedLabel is required and revalidated before the hours control is activated, implying it is used to identify the control. However, it does not specify what value expectedLabel should contain or how it maps to the UI, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('visible opening-hours surface for the currently selected Google Maps place'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read/search tools. It also clarifies what the tool does not do, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 gives clear context: it operates on the currently selected place, requires expectedLabel, and requires Interactive Assist to be enabled. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the scope and prerequisites are clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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