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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety adds nothing. The description's real contribution is disclosing the payload shape — it tells the agent this returns a superset including sources, license, and a conditional website check, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with 'Full record for one place' and then the field inventory. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the field list does the work of describing the return value, so an agent knows what it gets. Minor gap: behavior for unknown or missing place_id (error vs. empty result) is unstated.

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 explains that place_id comes from search_places or export_leads. The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup behavior beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific resource and retrieval scope: 'Full record for one place', then enumerates the contents (contact fields, coordinates, category path, data sources/license, website check). This clearly separates it from the list-style sibling search_places, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one place' framing; the description never states when to call this instead of search_places or export_leads. The actual routing cue lives in the schema ('Place id from search_places or export_leads'), not the description.

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