search_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (Google Maps) and the returned entity fields, which is useful context, but it omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, and result-limit behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource come first, and the extracted field list is compact enough to remain useful without bloating the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately compensates by naming the returned fields (title, address, phone, website, coordinates, rating). For a simple two-parameter search tool, this is nearly complete, though it still leaves usage relative to local-lead siblings unaddressed.

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 both the query syntax examples and the limit default/max are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which meets the baseline expectation 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 (Search) and resource (local businesses, places, establishments on Google Maps) and lists the structured fields returned. It is clear enough to separate from web-content and crawling siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the potentially overlapping discover_local_leads or extract_contacts tools.

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 implied by the verb 'Search' and the Google Maps/local-business scope, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the sibling tools when local lead discovery or contact extraction might be preferred.

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