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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: partial-update semantics ('unspecified fields stay unchanged'), a per-call cost ($0.10), and an API-key requirement. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown place_id or what the patch returns, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a parenthetical, with the core action and identifier keys front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information the schema or annotations do not.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus cost/auth note give a reasonable behavioral picture. For a 24-parameter mutation tool with 0 required params, however, the definition is thin: it never explains that no parameters are mandatory, how to distinguish the idempotency_key/request_id aliases, or what errors to expect.

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 8% across 24 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden and largely fails to. It names the two identifier params and gives a few example updatable fields (hours, affordability, address, notes), but leaves roughly twenty other parameters — price_level, opening_hours, hours_source, tags, latitude/longitude, idempotency_key alias — undocumented in both schema and description.

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 — 'Patch a saved place card' — and names the two identifier keys (place_id / business_contact_id), so it is distinguishable from create_place and get_place. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling enrich_place_from_google, which is also a place-card mutation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The patch semantics hint at 'use this to modify an existing card,' but the agent gets no help deciding between this, create_place, enrich_place_from_google, or resolve_place.

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