maps_search

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 does disclose that the tool opens a search in a dedicated browser session, which is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects, session state changes, whether results are returned, or whether the browser waits for the search to complete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part contributes meaning: the action, the target, the user-directed nature, and the dedicated browser session.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core action reasonably well. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and it does not clarify what happens after the search is opened (e.g., navigation, return value, or browser state). Overall it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 a single 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain what the query should contain (e.g., address, place name, free text), what formats are acceptable, or how the query maps to the search behavior. The parameter name is suggestive but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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: 'Open one user-directed Google Maps search in the dedicated browser session.' It specifies a clear verb, resource, and scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like maps_search_nearby by emphasizing 'user-directed' and 'dedicated browser session.'

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as maps_search_nearby or maps_read_search_suggestions. The phrase 'user-directed' hints at one usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mention.

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