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

The description notes that the tool 'Counts against your daily read quota,' which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The annotations already indicate it is read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds useful quota information without contradicting anything.

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?

The description is two sentences: one clearly stating purpose and scope, the second providing usage constraint and a behavioral note. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant. No wasted words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not detail return format, but the annotations (openWorldHint) suggest flexibility. The tool has only 5 parameters, all documented, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers purpose, constraint, and quota impact, but could optionally hint at pagination or default behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minor value by summarizing the requirement (give at least one of q, city, country or category), but this is already inferable from the schema's lack of required parameters. A 4 is justified as the description does not conflict or add major new semantics.

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 clearly states the tool searches a directory of 2.5 million places across many destinations, listing specific examples like restaurants, bars, hotels, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings, such as num_get_place which likely retrieves a specific place, by focusing on search functionality.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool — to search for places — and provides a clear prerequisite: at least one of q, city, country, or category must be given. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling list provides context.

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