maps_search_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses batch support, the API version, and the read-only nature via '查询', but it does not mention behavior for invalid IDs, default vs optional response fields, rate limits, or response structure.

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 two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and result categories, then adds batch capability and version context.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description plus highly detailed schema covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could add response-format or error-handling details, but the current coverage is strong for the tool's complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions: id explains source, delimiter, and max count, while show_fields lists all acceptable values. The description adds little beyond repeating a few field examples, so 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?

The description clearly states the action: query detailed POI information by POI ID, and lists the kinds of details returned (address, phone, hours, photos). This makes it reasonably distinct from sibling search/direction tools, though it never explicitly names or differentiates a sibling.

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 id parameter description explains that IDs come from keyword search or around search, which implies this tool is the follow-up detail lookup after searching. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it versus direction or geocoding tools.

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