maps_select_search_suggestion

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: failure modes (duplicate, reordered, missing, stale, changed identities) and success criteria (grid closes, Maps enters verified view). It also mentions the requirement for Interactive Assist, providing full 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 concise yet comprehensive, covering purpose, prerequisites, behavior, and failure modes without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description provides sufficient context within the broader tool set: it relates to maps_read_search_suggestions and explains the expected outcome. It also addresses edge cases and prerequisites, making it self-contained for an agent.

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?

All three parameters (query, index, expectedLabel) are explained through the description: query must be the same as used for the suggestion list, index and expectedLabel must match the returned values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 purpose: selecting a search suggestion from a previously read suggestion list. It specifies the verb 'Select', the resource (suggestion from maps_read_search_suggestions), and distinguishes it from other selection tools like maps_select_result.

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?

It explicitly states prerequisites (must have read suggestions, same query must be used) and provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also warns against stale or mismatched data, giving practical guidance.

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