maps_text_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only appends an API version note ('搜索POI 2.0，v5接口') and does not disclose response format, pagination/ranking behavior, or the fact that region merely increases recall weight rather than restricting results — all of which an agent would need to know before invoking.

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 entry is a single short sentence with the core action front-loaded before the trailing API version parenthetical. It is efficient, though the version note ('搜索POI 2.0，v5接口') is of marginal value to an AI agent.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not help the agent decide between this and maps_around_search/maps_search_detail, gives no sense of return contents, and lacks behavioral caveats. The complete schema compensates for parameter understanding but not for tool selection or output expectations.

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 7 parameters are already documented in the input schema and the baseline is 3. The description's POI examples (餐厅、加油站、景点) add mild illustration for what can go in 'keywords' but provide no semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a clear action ('根据关键词搜索' / keyword search) and a specific resource (POI 兴趣点) with concrete examples (餐厅、加油站、景点). It conveys the keyword-driven nature that separates it from location-based siblings like maps_around_search, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as maps_around_search (nearby/location-based search) or maps_search_detail (POI detail lookup). The '根据关键词' phrasing only implies a keyword-based use case; it never states it or excludes the alternatives.

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