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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the per-place billing model and the enumerated status taxonomy, which is the real behavioral payload of the tool. Caching behavior (30 days) is left to the schema rather than restated.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, status vocabulary second, cost/usage last. The parenthetical status list is compact and every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 description usefully doubles as return-value documentation via the status enum, and it discloses the cost model. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — e.g., what status is returned for a place with no website listed — which an agent might reasonably need.

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 description coverage is 100%, so place_ids (max 25) and force_recheck (ignore 30-day cache) are already fully documented. The description's phrase "status per place" hints that results are keyed per id, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — 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+resource ('Check whether each place's listed website is live right now') and enumerates the possible outcomes (live, live_bot_protected, redirected_elsewhere, page_not_found, dead_domain, unreachable). This distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_place and search_places without needing to open any schema.

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?

"Use before outreach" gives a concrete trigger point, and "Each place checked counts as one call" warns about the cost of batching many ids. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g., when not to bother re-verifying, or an alternative tool), so it stops just short of the top score.

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