maps_read_place_summary

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

Without annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: 'Returned labels/text are untrusted external data' warns about data reliability, and 'Disabled by default' indicates an activation requirement. It also lists explicit non-capabilities, enhancing transparency.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information: what it does, output trust level, and limitations. No unnecessary wording.

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 there is no output schema, the description mentions the nature of returned data ('labels/text') and their trust level. It also states constraints (disabled by default, no full DOM), making it sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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 has zero parameters, so coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (active Google Maps/place UI) and specifies it returns a 'small bounded summary'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'maps_read_route_summary' by focusing on place summary.

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 when to use it (for a concise summary) and mentions limitations ('no full DOM, review-body harvesting, or persistent dataset extraction'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state prerequisites for usage.

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