maps_search_nearby

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

The description provides useful behavioral context by stating that expectedLabel is revalidated immediately before the scoped Nearby control is activated and that Interactive Assist must be enabled. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose observable side effects, failure behavior, or whether the operation modifies the page beyond activating the Nearby control.

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 and gives a clear first-sentence of the purpose plus a second with key execution details. It is concise and front-loaded, but the phrase 'expectedLabel is required' partly duplicates the schema's required constraint.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation UI-state tool, the description captures the essential preconditions and mechanism: current selected place, expectedLabel revalidation, and a visible Nearby workflow. However, it lacks observable execution details, meaning the returned result of invoking the tool, and what the majority fails. It is serviceable but not complete.

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 compensate but largely does not. It mentions expectedLabel's revalidation behavior, but it never defines what expectedLabel is semantically or how to construct it, and query might be intended as the search term. The description does not adequately explain either parameter beyond the schema's raw names/constraints.

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 what the tool does: searches near the currently selected Google Maps place using a specific visible Nearby workflow. It explicitly differentiates this from the general maps_search sibling by introducing a selected-place scope and a workflow-based operation.

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 a concrete usage context: you must have a currently selected Google Maps place, a visible Nearby workflow, and Interactive Assist enabled. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the baseline context is reasonably clear.

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