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

The annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write with no open-world access. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the downstream consequences — GrowthDept writes a page and searches for local queries — which is exactly the kind of side-effect context an agent needs before mutating state. It stops short of saying whether the generated page is published immediately or what happens on the 21st place.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the limit. Nothing is redundant, though the tone is conversational rather than specification-like.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers intent, side effects, and a quota constraint. The main gaps are failure behavior at the twenty-place cap and whether adding a place has any cost or review step.

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 carry the parameter meaning. It adds real value by clarifying that 'name' is a geographic place the business covers and giving 'Lewisham' as a pattern, but it leaves the length bounds (2–60) and any format expectations (e.g., locality vs. region, duplicates) to the schema alone.

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 clear verb+resource ("Add a place the business covers") and grounds it with a concrete example ("such as Lewisham"). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like remove_place and places by stating the additive direction, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for registering a new service area, and the "at most twenty places" note hints at a precondition. The description does not say when to prefer this over suggest_places or places, nor what to do when the cap is already reached.

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