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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context—idempotency semantics, API key requirement, and cost ($0.10)—which is genuinely beyond what annotations provide. It does not, however, describe what happens on duplicate name matches beyond 'does not create calendar notes,' nor error behavior for partial matches.

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?

A single dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, lists fields compactly, and tacks on idempotency and cost—appropriate framing for a tool definition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described. But for a 21-parameter mutation tool with only 29% schema description coverage and no annotation coverage of side effects, the description leaves too many gaps—particularly the ambiguity around name-based idempotency (what if the name matches an existing place but other fields differ?) and the meaning of aliased parameters.

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 only 29% with 21 parameters, so the schema leaves most parameters undocumented. The description lists some field categories (address, opening_hours, affordability, notes, tags) and mentions idempotency by name or idempotency_key, but omits many parameters like latitude/longitude, category aliasing, phone_numbers, hours_source, and request_id. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: saving a 'venue card (business_contacts)' with named fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from siblings like `update_place` or `enrich_place_from_google`, though the create-vs-update distinction is implied by the name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The description implies idempotency but doesn't explain when an agent should use `create_place` versus `update_place`, `resolve_place`, or `log_place_visit`, nor does it state what happens when a place already exists.

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