maps_get_search_share_link

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing internal revalidation steps, verification of the Send a link tab, dialog closure, and the explicit guarantee that clipboard contents are never read. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It contains some detailed internal steps that could be trimmed, but every sentence contributes unique information. No wasted words, though slightly verbose.

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 output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, prerequisites, and safety behaviors. It is complete for the tool's complexity and clearly communicates what the agent needs to know.

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?

The schema provides no description for expectedQuery, so the description's explanation that it is 'revalidated against both the canonical maps_search action and the exact visible search combobox' gives essential meaning to the parameter. With 0% schema coverage, this is a strong compensation.

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 function: 'Return the Google Maps-generated share URL for the active search-result list.' It identifies a specific verb (Return), resource (share URL for search-result list), and distinguishes it from sibling share-link tools for places and routes.

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 provides usage context by tying the tool to the search-result list and mentions prerequisites (Interactive Assist must be enabled) and a safety note (clipboard never read). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource specificity makes its intended use clear.

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