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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by explaining that each result links to a /place/{slug} page and that ranked pages use /best/{category}, but it does not describe ordering, pagination behavior, or the returned fields.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with useful output URL context.

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?

The tool has no required parameters, full schema description coverage, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description supplies additional URL context for results, though it could say more about result ordering or what fields each place includes.

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 already documents all four parameters including enums and the limit default. The description mentions category, tag, and featured filtering but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List' curated places in Fulham, with optional filtering by category, tag, or featured status. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as search_places or nearby_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?

The description implies browsing curated places and mentions the available filters, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of search_places, nearby_places, or get_place. Usage is only minimally guided.

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