Get business details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the return payload (opening hours, phones, addresses, reviews, status), the batch limit of 10, and the per-request cost model. While it does not discuss error handling or authentication, it provides significant operational behavior beyond a simple tautology.

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, each with a distinct purpose: the main action, the return data, and cost/workflow guidance. The description front-loads the primary verb and resource, contains zero filler, and every sentence contributes information.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description already covers the key selection criteria: purpose, input source, limit, cost, and return highlights. It also references sibling tools. For a tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already includes a descriptive parameter comment: 'Place IDs from search_businesses or sweep_area,' giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little new semantic detail beyond repeating 'by place ID' and the max of 10, which is already in the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Fetch full Google Maps details for up to 10 businesses by place ID.' It clearly names the resource (businesses) and the scope (by place ID, max 10). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_businesses, which presumably performs searches rather than fetching details by ID.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'use search_businesses first to narrow the list.' It also gives a cost-based reason ('Costs one API call per place ID') that explains why this tool should be used after narrowing, not as a general search tool. This constitutes clear alternatives and when-to-use guidance.

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