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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds limited behavioral context beyond that: a quota ('up to eight quotable statements') and a conditional ('gluten-free identity when known'), but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, permissions, or freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then a denser enumeration of returned content. Every clause roughly earns its place, though the long field list reads more like output documentation than selection guidance.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description need not enumerate returns yet does so anyway. Combined with the parameter count of one, this is sufficient for correct invocation; only failure modes for a bad id are unaddressed.

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?

There is one required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it specifies the id is 'from search_places', telling the agent where valid ids originate, though it does not state format or constraints (min 3 / max 40 chars).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Everything about one place', 'Full detail for a place id') and implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_places by naming it as the source of the id. An agent can tell it apart from search_places without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: it takes an id produced by search_places, establishing the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternative retrieval paths, so it is clear rather than complete.

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