maps_select_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the server refuses to click if expectedLabel doesn't match, indicating a safety mechanism. It also implies selection triggers a click action. It does not mention side effects like navigation, but for a simple 'select' operation, this is sufficient and adds valuable context beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core action, the second provides a conditional parameter guideline. No filler, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it (currently displayed results), how to use it (index), and an important safety mechanism. It could mention prerequisites like 'only after a search' or error behavior, but these are implied. It is comparably complete to the high-standard examples.

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 compensate. It explains the expectedLabel parameter's purpose (a checksum from maps_read_place_summary) and clarifies that index is zero-based (though the schema's minimum of 0 hints at this). It does not detail index beyond that, but the description adds meaningful semantic value, especially for expectedLabel.

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 function: selecting a currently displayed place result by zero-based index. It specifies the verb (select), resource (place result), and scope (currently displayed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like maps_select_place_tab or maps_select_route.

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 a clear usage context for the expectedLabel parameter, advising to pass it from maps_read_place_summary when available to prevent clicks if the result list changed. It implies the tool is used after a search yields displayed results, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the sibling context makes this fairly clear.

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