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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: the full return structure (identifications, coordinates, class, rubric, sources, attested passages) and the edge case that unlocated places carry no coordinates. This is meaningful behavioral context not implied by the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and object ('Get one place by slug'), followed by useful detail about the returned data. It is informative without being bloated, though the first sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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?

With an output schema present, the description provides enough contextual detail: it describes what is returned (identifications, coordinates, rubric, sources, passages) and the edge case of unlocated places. It also covers the intended use case. A slight gap is that locale parameter isn't mentioned, but schema covers it, so this is sufficient.

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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters (`slug` with an example, `locale` with enum and default). The description merely reinforces 'by slug' and does not add insight beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value, so a 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 clearly states the tool retrieves one place by slug and specifies the content: every identification with coordinates, rubric, sources, and attested passages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_homeric_route` or `list_homeric_places` by naming the exact resource and its granularity.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you need to weigh the evidence for a location, or to cite it.' It also notes the special case of unlocated places. However, it does not mention when to prefer alternative tools like `get_related` or `search`, so no explicit exclusion or alternative is given, but the context is clear.

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