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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the exact content of the response, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how missing or invalid slugs are handled, or any other behavioral caveats.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('full terms of one place') and then provides a concise field list. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input form and the contents of the result. It is slightly incomplete only in that it offers no guidance about sibling tools or behavior on missing data, but these are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameter `place` is already documented with an example ("Slug (aihaven) or domain (aihaven.com)"). The description merely repeats the 'slug or domain' concept without adding new format, validation, or usage detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 clearly identifies the resource: the full listing terms of one place, retrievable by slug or domain. It enumerates the specific fields returned (verdict, price text, link, review, submit URL, contact, notes, checked date, paragraph), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_places and listing_costs.

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 usage when you have a specific slug or domain and need complete terms for that one place. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_places for discovering places, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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