search_places_by_text

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination limits (20 per page, max 60), detail levels with cost trade-offs, and the fact that atmosphere detail may be disabled. This is above baseline transparency.

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 two sentences: the first gives purpose and examples, the second details pagination and detail levels. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter (e.g., 'returns up to 20 places per page and a token...' is clear). No wasted words.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no enum constraints, the description covers the most critical aspects: query, detail, and pagination. It does not elaborate on rank_by, location-based parameters (latitude/longitude, radius_metres), open_now, or min_rating, but the tool is simple enough that these are likely inferred from parameter names. An output schema exists, so return behavior is defined. Slightly more context on location parameters would push to 5.

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 heavily. It does: it explains the detail parameter's options and trade-offs ('essentials', 'pro', 'enterprise', 'atmosphere') and clarifies pagination semantics (page_size, page_token). The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('places'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_places_nearby by emphasizing text-based description queries. Examples make the scope immediately obvious.

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool (for natural language queries) vs. siblings like search_places_nearby (which likely uses coordinates or proximity). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but context signals and sibling names make differentiation clear.

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