maps_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'open' implies a non-destructive navigation/display action, and 'using an official Maps URL' hints at the mechanism, but it does not mention side effects, return behavior, or external browser/app interaction.

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. Every word contributes to the core purpose and mechanism.

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 open-map tool, the one-sentence description adequately states the main action, but it lacks usage guidance, parameter clarification, and behavioral details about what happens after opening. It is minimally viable but not richly 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%, and the description barely compensates: 'centered on coordinates' hints at latitude/longitude semantics but provides no additional meaning for the zoom parameter, units, or how the coordinates are formatted. The schema itself carries most of the parameter meaning.

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 opens Google Maps centered on coordinates using an official Maps URL. It conveys a specific verb and resource, and the coordinate focus helps distinguish it from search, directions, and streetview siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as maps_search, maps_directions, or maps_get_place_share_link. There are no use-case examples, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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