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

Goes well beyond the annotations with non-obvious semantics: null open_now means unverified hours, not closed; only verified data is returned and absences are ignorance, not omission; the attribution field MUST be displayed with photos. It also warns against filling gaps from memory, which is real behavioral guidance an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 resource and scope, and the critical caveats (null semantics, attribution, no invention) are kept. The central sentence is a very long comma-chained enumeration of return fields, which is dense to scan even though each item is informative.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly — listing every field family and the one field (attribution) with a mandatory display obligation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already says the id comes 'From search_places,' so the description's mention of place_id origin duplicates structured data. With only one parameter there is little left to clarify beyond that baseline.

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 — retrieve everything held on one place, keyed by place_id. The enumeration of returned facets (contact details, hours, rating, reviews, photos, booking) makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_reviews, get_menu, or search_places.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use before showing a detail page or handing a traveller a phone number,' and anchors the key's provenance to search_places. It stops short of naming when to prefer siblings (get_reviews, get_menu) for narrow needs, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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