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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the error contract ({error: ...} for malformed or unknown ids) and the breadth of returned fields including open_now_utc and three nearby venues.

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 the core action and resource, then a compact inventory of return contents and the error case. Every clause carries information; only the long field list pushes against the density limit.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so partially, naming the key fields, nearby venues, and the error shape. It is complete enough to call correctly, though pagination or response envelope details are absent.

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 itself documents the id format with a concrete example ('italy/rome/restaurants/roscioli'), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the failure mode for an invalid id, not additional syntax or format meaning.

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 action and resource: 'One venue in full by id', which plainly separates it from the plural search_places sibling. It also enumerates what 'in full' means (provenance, hours, booking link, nearby venues), so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 implied rather than stated: the id is described as the one 'search_places returned', which signals this is the detail-lookup follow-up to a search, and the malformed/unknown-id error case is disclosed. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of search_places or any other sibling.

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