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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the payload contains – the guide's description and the public /place URL – which matters given there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for missing slugs, keeping it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and keyed lookup, then the payload contents. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a documented parameter, the description supplies the missing piece – what the response contains. Only edge-case behavior for nonexistent or non-public slugs is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single slug parameter includes a concrete example. The description's 'by slug' restates the schema rather than adding format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Full editorial record for one Fulham place by slug.' The phrase 'one ... by slug' implicitly contrasts with the list/search siblings, and 'full editorial record' signals the depth of payload. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so not a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you need a slug and want the complete record rather than a listing or search result. There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no mention of when to prefer search_places or nearby_places, and no note on what happens for an unknown or unpublished slug.

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