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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description isn't required to cover safety. It still adds real value: deprecated and unlisted places are excluded from results, and an unknown slug returns { "error": "not_found" } — non-obvious behaviors that annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then result contents, then filtering rule, then error case — every clause carries information. Slightly run-on as one long sentence, but 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?

Covers what is returned (description, canonical URL, ordered places), what is filtered out, and the not-found shape, which is substantive given no output schema. Missing only minor details like whether places are paginated or how many a collection typically contains.

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%: the slug parameter already has an example ('fish-fry'), pattern, min/max length. The description's example and 'collection slug' phrasing add little beyond the schema; the unknown-slug error note is useful but describes behavior rather than parameter semantics.

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 ('Returns one curated collection'), resource (collection), and lookup key (slug), with a concrete example ('fish-fry'). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_place/get_entity siblings by scoping to curated collections.

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 slug-based scope and the example make it obvious this is a single-collection lookup, not a search or list. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., list_categories or search_places) or states when to prefer those, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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