place_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses return fields, explains the radius_meters default of 5 km (even though schema default is 0, implying 0 means use default), and describes open_now filtering behavior. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, but the core behavior is well covered.

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, well-structured with examples, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. The line breaks and formatting aid readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 output schema exists and the description already lists return fields, it does not need to reiterate them. It covers the main parameter behaviors, defaults, and usage patterns. The only gap is max_results semantics, but that is a minor omission for a tool with six parameters.

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. It explains query semantics, latitude/longitude use, radius_meters default in meaningful terms, and open_now. It omits max_results, but the other parameters are given practical context beyond the schema's raw defaults.

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 finds businesses/points of interest via free-text query with examples, and distinguishes it from siblings like geocode and place_details by emphasizing free-text search. It also lists specific return fields, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context on using latitude/longitude to bias results or putting the suburb in the query, along with radius_meters default and open_now usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with place_search_nearby or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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