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 usefully adds non-obvious operational context the annotations do not: the $0.10 cost and the API key requirement, plus disclosure of the two underlying data sources. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. pagination or default limit behavior).

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 compact sentence front-loads the data sources and fields, with the cost/auth note trailing. There is little waste, though the source-qualified phrasing (`saved_places` from business_contacts) is denser than an agent needs for selection.

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 need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 7-parameter, 0-required tool with only 29% schema coverage, the description leaves filtering behavior and usage context underspecified, making it only minimally adequate.

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%, and with 7 parameters (tag, area, city, near, limit, country, affordability) the description documents essentially none of them beyond restating the affordability format ($/$$/$$$) already in the schema. It does not compensate for the large coverage gap, leaving filtering semantics for tag/area/city/country/limit unexplained.

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 the resources clearly ('visit-graph `places` plus saved place cards') and what fields accompany them (address, opening_hours, affordability), which lets an agent understand this is a listing of known venues. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_place, get_place_visits, or resolve_place, so it is clear but not disambiguating.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated conditions or prerequisites beyond the cost/API-key note. An agent cannot tell from this text when to prefer get_places over get_place or a search tool.

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