maps_get_place_share_link

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds value by revealing the validation step (revalidating expectedLabel against the active place) and the prerequisite of Interactive Assist. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the read-only annotation, though it does not describe error handling or output format.

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 concise, containing only two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides essential parameter context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description covers all key aspects: what it does, prerequisites, and validation behavior. With no output schema, naming the return as a 'share link' is sufficient. No major gaps exist.

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 explain the parameter. It says 'expectedLabel is required and is revalidated against the active place,' which clarifies its purpose—matching the label to the currently selected place. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 specifically states the tool returns a 'Google Maps-generated share link for the currently selected place,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling share-link tools (e.g., for routes or search) by focusing on 'currently selected 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 explains that the tool is used when the Share control is about to be activated and that expectedLabel is revalidated. It also states the prerequisite that Interactive Assist must be enabled. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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