fetch_maps_place

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it downloads at 'max resolution', creates a subfolder with specific files, returns a JSON summary, and provides typical run times. It also notes the deprecated meta_only alias. This is transparent about core behavior. It omits edge cases like invalid URLs or missing media, but the essential behavioral traits are well covered, so a 4 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence for purpose, followed by an Args list, and then return/timing info. The inclusion of a very specific default path ('/mnt/d/Projects/maps-data-fetcher/places') is an implementation detail that may not be relevant to an agent, slightly reducing conciseness. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded, but not perfectly lean.

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 the tool's complexity, absence of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, input requirements, behavior (downloads, creates files), output format, and performance expectations. It even documents the deprecated alias. The existence of the output schema excuses the lack of detailed return structure. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter (url, output_dir, include, meta_only) is documented with types, defaults, and allowed values. The include parameter's options are enumerated, the output_dir default is given, and meta_only's deprecated status is noted. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Fetch a Google Maps place by link'), the resource (a Google Maps place URL), and the scope (downloads media and metadata). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by combining both info and media in one call, and it lists the exact metadata fields and media types. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does and how it differs from get_place_info or get_place_media.

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 description gives clear context on the input format ('single place only, not search links') and the include parameter allows partial fetches, which implies alternative usages (e.g., 'info' only). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer a sibling over this one. The guidance is implied through the include options rather than stated as a routing decision, so it scores at the 'implied usage' level.

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