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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by describing what each method returns, including public reviews and videos tagged at the place, though it leaves pagination and limit behavior to the 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?

The description is a compact, front-loaded sentence followed by a useful example. Every clause earns its place by identifying the resource, accepted id sources, available methods, and a concrete invocation pattern.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Return details are left to the output schema, and parameter limits/paging are covered by the input schema.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including enums for method and detail. The description reinforces the id sources and demonstrates method usage in an example, but adds little semantic detail beyond the structured schema.

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 identifies the resource ('One tagged place: business, venue or landmark') and the three retrieval modes: detail, tagged videos, and public reviews. It also distinguishes this from place_search by specifying that the id comes from place_search, a post's place.id, or a place link.

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?

It gives clear usage context by naming accepted id sources and the method options, plus an example. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, but the single-place scope is evident from 'One tagged place' and the referenced sibling place_search.

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