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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only that it uses Google Places and yields suggestions plus place IDs, which is modest context beyond the structured data and omits things like billing/session implications despite a session_token parameter.

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 short sentences, no filler, purpose front-loaded before the usage clause. Every phrase carries weight.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description only needs to state purpose and rough usage, which it does. The main omission is routing guidance against sibling lookup tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about input format, bias vs. restriction behavior, or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Autocomplete') and resource ('partial place or query string'), plus the backing service ('Google Places'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with goplaces_search or goplaces_resolve, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use to turn partial user input into place/query suggestions and place IDs' gives a clear triggering condition (partial input), which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions, so the agent isn't told when to prefer goplaces_search or goplaces_details instead.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that reviews and photos are opt-in and heavier, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it doesn't cover other traits like rate limits or exactly what the response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and usage triggers. The second sentence about opt-in reviews/photos is a bit of a tangent but still relevant to invocation cost.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the opt-in nature of heavy fields. It could mention when to prefer a different detail tool or the cost implications of detail_level, but it is largely 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters in detail, including detail_level tiers and billing implications. The description only mentions reviews and photos being opt-in, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (Google Place Details by place ID). It names the sibling tools (search, nearby, autocomplete, resolve) that produce inputs for this tool, distinguishing it from them clearly.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: after search, nearby, autocomplete, or resolve when the user needs phone, website, hours, business status, reviews, or photos. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative detail tools, but the context is very clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context (returns warnings, optional steps, supports compare mode) but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or other operational details beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact list of capabilities. Every sentence 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?

Given 24 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides a solid high-level overview of the tool's purpose and main features. It omits some parameter groups (e.g., waypoints, alternatives, routing preferences), but those are fully covered by the schema, and the output schema explains return values. Minor gaps like not mentioning intermediate stops keep it from a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description synthesizes endpoint specification forms and lists supported modes, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making it a baseline case of 3.

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 specifies the verb ('Get directions'), the resource ('directions, distance, duration, warnings, and optional steps'), and the domain ('between two locations using Google Routes'). It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from related siblings such as goplaces_route_search or goplaces_route_matrix, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'between two locations' and the list of supported modes. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like route_search or route_matrix, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds almost nothing behavioral and notably omits billing-sensitive behavior that the schema itself flags (the detail_level and include_atmosphere cost tiers), which is the single most important behavioral fact for this tool. Rate limits and result caps are also unmentioned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, and no filler. The return-format sentence is placed after usage guidance, which is reasonable; slightly could be trimmed but generally efficient.

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?

With a rich schema, output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. However, for a 15-parameter, cost-sensitive tool, it omits the billing-tier warning and sibling differentiation that an agent selecting between goplaces_search and goplaces_nearby needs.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 15 parameters including the billing-tier semantics of detail_level and origin-distance optimization. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Google Places) with the spatial constraint (near a lat/lng within a radius). It is distinct from goplaces_search, but the description does not explicitly name that sibling to differentiate the coordinate-based vs. text-based use case.

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?

'Use when the user gives coordinates or you already resolved a location' gives a clear triggering condition. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance (e.g., when to prefer goplaces_search for free-text queries), keeping it just under a 5.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that the tool converts a resource name into a URL, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that resolving returns a temporary URL. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and immediately following with the usage context. 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?

With a full schema and output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It provides the key upstream dependency and the basic operation. Minor gaps include no mention of URL expiration or permissions, but for a focused resolver tool with rich structured fields, this is largely 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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (a Google Places photo resource name into a photo media URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like goplaces_details, which returns place data, though it explicitly names goplaces_details as the source of photo names. It does not differentiate from all siblings, but the operation is clear.

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?

Explicitly names the context in which this tool is used: 'Use with photo names returned by goplaces_details(include_photos=true).' That tells an agent both the upstream dependency and the prerequisite flag, which is strong guidance. It does not state when not to use it or offer alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are candidates with coordinates and place IDs, which is modest value. It says nothing about result ordering, ambiguity handling, or the limit behavior beyond the schema default.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and usage following. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply purpose and routing context, which it does. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from the closely related autocomplete and search siblings, which an agent facing nine peer tools would benefit from.

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 100%, so every parameter including region, language, and limit is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantics detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a free-form location string into candidate Google places with coordinates and place IDs.' That is precise about inputs and outputs. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling goplaces_autocomplete, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Use before nearby searches or directions when you need structured candidates' gives clear context for when this tool fits. It names downstream tools it feeds but does not state when NOT to use it or how it differs from goplaces_autocomplete/goplaces_search, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds result-ordering behavior ('closest first') and return content ('with the distance from the point'), which the annotations do not convey. It does not mention billing/quota behavior despite detail_level's cost implications, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the use case immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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?

With an output schema present, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose, ordering, and routing context — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and includes rich per-parameter detail (detail_level billing tiers, radius_m guidance, limit bounds). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('identify') and the resource ('nearest places' at a latitude/longitude), including the useful detail that results come closest-first with distances. It contrasts implicitly with goplaces_search/goplaces_nearby by framing the task as labeling a point, but it never names or rules out a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear triggering contexts: 'what is at these coordinates' or labeling a GPS position. It provides no exclusions or explicit alternative (e.g., when to prefer goplaces_nearby or goplaces_details), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is low. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the operation is deliberately batched into one request to replace N direction calls, and results come back pre-ranked ('sorted fastest first').

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?

Three tight sentences with the ranking capability and batching scope front-loaded, followed by use cases and the sorting guarantee. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the 100%-documented schema covers the inputs. The description supplies the batching rationale and routing alternative, leaving only minor gaps such as traffic-awareness via departure_time or transit-specific caveats.

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 100%, so the schema already documents mode, units, region, language, departure_time content/format, and the address/place-name/PLACE_ID input form. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. which inputs accept place IDs), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rank destinations by travel time and distance from one or more origins in a single request.' The batching scope ('one or more origins', 'single request') plus ranking output clearly separates it from the single-pair siblings like goplaces_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?

Gives two concrete triggering scenarios ('which of these is closest to home', 'how long to each of these three offices') and names the alternative behavior it replaces ('one directions call per candidate'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, e.g. falling back to a plain directions call for a single origin/destination pair.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds return-context (detour time, direct route distance and duration) that goes beyond annotations. However, key cost/billing behavior (detail_level tiers, include_atmosphere expense) is only in the schema, not the description.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose+ranking, returns, and examples. Front-loaded with the core function and no filler.

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?

Given annotations cover safety and the schema fully covers 14 parameters, the description is adequate. It could note the billing-tier tradeoff or the detour-ranking caveat, but for a read-only search with rich schema and output schema, it is nearly 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already documents its meaning, including enums, defaults, and billing rationale for detail_level. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (find), resource (places), and scope (along a route between two locations), plus the ranking criterion (least detour). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like goplaces_directions and goplaces_nearby.

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?

Gives concrete example queries ('coffee stops between Seattle and Portland', 'EV charging on the way to Portland') that establish when to use it, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it versus goplaces_nearby/search.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns compact summaries and a next_page_token, and it advertises pagination and location-bias support. It does not, however, mention billing tier implications or pagination constraints (those live in 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then filters, then return shape. The mid-sentence enumeration of place categories is somewhat listy but earns its place by clarifying the query domain.

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 21-parameter tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly defers detail to the schema. It covers scope, filters, and pagination. The only omission is routing versus siblings like goplaces_nearby.

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 100%, so all 21 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only lists filter categories (open now, rating, price, type, pagination, location bias), which echoes but does not add meaning beyond the structured field docs. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Google Places by free-form text') plus the scope of things it can find. However, it never names the sibling tools it overlaps with (goplaces_nearby for proximity, goplaces_autocomplete for prefix matching), so the agent must infer the boundary from other tools' descriptions.

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 'Use for finding businesses, landmarks, venues, restaurants, shops, attractions, or services' sentence gives clear task context. It does not state when-not to use it or point to an alternative sibling, which is the main gap.

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