Connector: Google maps search

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

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note that Google Maps Platform calls are billable/quota-limited, no auth requirements, no indication of why a "search" carries destructiveHint=true. The tension between a search verb and destructiveHint=true is left unexplained.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The API-coverage sentence earns its place by signalling that geocoding and place details are also reachable, though it reads partly as scope marketing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could usefully say something about result shape or identifiers, but it does not. It also omits routing guidance to connector_google_maps_fetch. Annotations cover the safety dimension, leaving this adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or limit-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Search Google Maps") and expands scope to geocoding and Places search. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling connector_google_maps_fetch, so an agent cannot tell from the description which one to open for a lookup.

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 only implied by the verb "Search". There is no statement of when to use this versus connector_google_maps_fetch, no guidance on query phrasing (address vs place name vs coordinates), and no prerequisites such as API key or billing context.

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