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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: "Effects: None. May call a place-lookup provider" discloses an external dependency, and "never picks one silently" tells the agent to expect multiple results rather than a single answer. Minor gap: no mention of latency, rate limits, or failure behavior when the provider is unreachable.

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 core transformation, then the result guarantee, then the side-effect disclosure. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only partially covers return values ("every plausible match") without saying what a match contains or how many to expect. The undocumented kind parameter is the main completeness gap for an otherwise simple two-parameter lookup 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. "Place name" loosely maps to the required query parameter, but the required kind enum (any/city/airport) is never mentioned, leaving the agent to discover that constraint only by reading the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair: "Turns a place name into Anywayr place references." That is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_flights or search_hotels, which consume destinations rather than resolve them. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the purpose is 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?

"Returns every plausible match for the traveler to choose from" implies this is a disambiguation step to run before other destination-consuming tools, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. There is no explicit routing to or from a sibling, so usage must be inferred.

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