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

Though annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closedWorld, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the meaning of `open_now` null ("NOT that it is closed"), the strict verified-only return policy, the mandatory `attribution` display requirement for photos, and the 8-photo cap. These are the kind of traps that cause agent errors, and each is disclosed.

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 critical scoping and provenance arrive first, and nearly every clause carries actionable information (null semantics, attribution, verification policy). The cost is a single very long run-on sentence that is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — it does so field by field, including edge cases (null hours, missing fields meaning unknown). For a one-parameter read tool this leaves no meaningful gap for an agent to fill by guessing.

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 coverage on a single parameter, the baseline is 3. The description repeats provenance ("by place_id from search_places") which is already in the schema's parameter description, and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ("Everything NUM holds on one place, by place_id from search_places") and then enumerates the returned fields, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_reviews or booking_link, which cover subsets of this data.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("Use before showing a detail page or handing a traveller a phone number") and routes the agent to search_places for the id. It doesn't explicitly name a when-not or a direct alternative, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is clear.

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