maps_select_place_tab

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 mentions the revalidation of expectedLabel against the visible tab identity before the action, which is a safety check. It also states the prerequisite that Interactive Assist must be enabled. However, it does not specify whether the action is a read-only view switch or a mutating operation, what happens if validation fails, or whether it returns any result. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured, covering purpose, validation, exclusions, and a prerequisite in just a few sentences. There is no redundant or verbose language, and it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 simple selection tool, the description covers key aspects: what it does, what parameters are required, the validation behavior, an exclusion, and a system requirement. It lacks an explicit statement about side effects (e.g., it changes the visible tab) and does not describe error handling or return values. Given the scope and no output schema, this is reasonably complete but could be enhanced with a note on whether it is read-only or returns a status.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It explains expectedLabel as required and revalidated against the tab identity, clarifying its purpose. The tab parameter is effectively described by the phrase 'Overview or About tab', and the exclusion of Reviews further clarifies valid values. While not exhaustive, the description provides sufficient semantic guidance.

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 tool's action: selecting the verified Overview or About tab for the currently selected Google Maps place. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tab selection within a place, not search, results, or directions.

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 context on when to use the tool: for the Overview or About tab. It also gives a clear exclusion: Reviews is intentionally not exposed. It mentions the prerequisite that Interactive Assist must be enabled, and it explains the revalidation of expectedLabel. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other tabs or scenarios.

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