Google Maps

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

Annotations already label it read-only and open-world; the description adds valuable operational context: no API key required, a concrete daily rate limit, and the output groups returned (local_results vs place_results with fields). No contradiction with annotations.

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 action and modes, then filters, then usage limits. No filler or redundant restatement of schema.

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?

Despite 23 parameters and no output schema, the combination of the high-coverage schema and description (mode selection, filters, return groups, rate limit) gives an agent what it needs to call the tool correctly. It could add a usage example or note on response size, but nothing critical 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?

With 96% schema coverage, the schema carries the parameter detail. The description still adds value by grouping the many parameters into modes and filter categories (price, rating, opening hours) and by naming the three identifier alternatives for exact-place lookup. This is more than baseline repetition.

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 opens with a specific action ('Search Google Maps for places') and explicitly distinguishes two modes: broad search returning local_results and exact place fetch via place_id, data_cid, or data sequence. This makes its scope clear relative to generic web-search siblings.

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 states clear use cases—searching for places with optional filters or retrieving a single place by identifier—and notes the free-tier constraint (50 calls/network/day). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the described scenarios are unambiguous.

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