maps_read_place_summary

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

The description discloses two significant behavioral traits: 'Disabled by default' and the explicit exclusions ('no full DOM, reviews, or persistent dataset extraction'). This goes beyond the minimal read-only implication and helps set expectations. However, it does not detail what the summary includes or how the disablement manifests (e.g., error behavior), preventing a top score.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds essential caveats. There is no fluff; every clause adds value, and the statement about being 'disabled by default' is critical.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it reads, the scope, and its limitations. It is fairly complete for such a simple read tool, but it could be improved by briefly indicating what the summary contains (e.g., name, rating, address) to fully set expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema details. The description's mention of 'current Google Maps place UI' clarifies the implicit context but adds nothing about parameters.

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 action ('Read a small, bounded summary') and the target resource ('current Google Maps place UI'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool maps_read_route_summary by explicitly targeting the place summary. It also narrows the scope with 'small, bounded,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by stating what the tool does NOT do ('no full DOM, reviews, or persistent dataset extraction'), which indirectly advises against using it when those are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide conditions like 'use when you only need a quick place summary,' leaving room for ambiguity.

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