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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating what each call mode returns and by listing the carried fields: slug, centroid, reach, and Wikidata/GeoNames identifiers. It is a read-style listing tool, so the absence of auth/rate-limit detail is less critical.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the second provides the return-field details. Every clause earns its place, even though the no-args phrasing is compact.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main things an agent needs: the three argument modes, the hierarchy, and the returned fields. It could be slightly more explicit about exactly what no-args returns and what happens with invalid codes, but it is largely complete for a simple list operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between arguments and the place graph: country yields that country's provinces, and province yields its metros. This is meaningful semantic enrichment, not just repetition.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('list places') and then defines the resource through the place-graph hierarchy: countries/provinces with no args, provinces for a country, metros for a province. This makes the tool's purpose and the different call modes unmistakable, and clearly differentiates it from sibling list_* tools.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: no args for countries and provinces/states, country for one country's provinces, province for one province's metros. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like get_place_catalogue, but the mode-based guidance is clear and actionable.

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