Google Maps Search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly implies a read-only search operation and adds useful behavioral context about using the Google Maps search pipeline and supporting async submissions for larger batches. It does not mention rate limits or costs, but for a search tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 clear section labels and bullet-like guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is concise despite covering several usage scenarios.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It covers main use cases, alternative tools, and async behavior. It could mention error/rate-limit behavior, but the description is largely complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description adds light semantic framing by mentioning natural-language queries and enrichments, but it does not provide deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. This aligns with the baseline 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 opens with 'Search Google Maps places through Outscraper', which combines a specific verb, resource, and data source. It further differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the Google Maps search pipeline and contrasts with businesses_search, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 'Best for', 'Prefer this tool when', and 'Use businesses_search instead when' sections. This clearly delineates when to select this tool over obvious alternatives and even includes guidance on execution_mode='auto' for batch/enriched use cases.

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