Google Maps Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context such as async mode for heavy jobs, polling with requests_get, and the deprecation of the async flag in favor of execution_mode. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits or data freshness, so it falls short of a 5.

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 opening sentence followed by bullet-point sections. It is concise yet informative, with every line serving a purpose. The front-loaded main purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 (17 parameters, output schema, and many sibling tools), the description covers the essential context: when to use it vs. alternatives, async behavior, and typical use cases. The output schema handles return value details, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.

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 the schema already documents all 17 parameters. The description adds minimal extra value beyond clarifying that 'query' accepts place ids or business queries and that async mode is preferred for large volumes. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Fetch Google Maps reviews for place ids or place queries.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like google_maps_search and other review tools by specifying its focus on reviews rather than place discovery.

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 'Prefer this tool when' and 'Do not use this for basic place discovery' sections, naming google_maps_search as the alternative. It also gives clear async mode usage guidelines, explaining when to use async and how to poll progress with requests_get.

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