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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a useful access caveat: the submit link and contact address are only visible on the place's page for signed-in visitors, implying this tool may not return them. It also enumerates what the record contains, but says nothing about auth requirements for calling the tool itself or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose (one place's full terms) is front-loaded before the returned-field list and the access caveat.

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 enumerating the returned fields (verdict, price text, link, review, submit method, notes, checked date, terms paragraph) is genuinely necessary and done well. The signed-in-visitor caveat covers the main behavioral gap; only tool-level auth or error behavior 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'place' parameter is documented as accepting a slug or domain. The description repeats the slug/domain concept without adding syntax, format, or fallback behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 ('The full terms of one place') and specifies the lookup key ('by its slug or domain'), then enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly a single-place detail fetch, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling where_is_app_listed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like search_places or listing_costs is given. The reader can infer that this is the detail lookup for a single place, but nothing states when to prefer it or what it excludes.

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