search_maps_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it uses Selenium for scraping, no API key needed, and returns photo URLs with author info. It also explains the require_attribution fallback logic. It lacks mention of potential failure cases or rate limits, but is transparent about the core scraping behavior.

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 three sentences, each efficiently adding information: purpose, examples, and method with return structure. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary 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?

The description covers the return value (JSON with URL, author, author profile) and all parameters. It mentions the scraping method and lack of API key. However, it does not discuss potential issues like missing photos for some places or performance constraints, which would make it more complete for a tool with no output schema.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the query parameter with examples, describes headless mode behavior, and gives a detailed explanation of require_attribution's fallback logic and ordering, which the schema description lacks.

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 searches Google Maps for a place and returns photo URLs with attribution info. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_images' by specifying it is for Google Maps place photos, not general image search.

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 good usage context: accepts place names, uses Selenium (scraping), no API key required, and returns photos with attribution for crediting. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_images', which would further clarify selection.

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