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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get'), and details the return payload including a website scrape, photos sample, owner info, and more, giving a transparent behavioral picture.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a detailed yet relevant list of return fields. Every clause adds value and the length is justified by the tool's comprehensive nature.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is exceptionally complete: it enumerates the return fields, mentions the website scrape, and ties the input to search_places. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining that place_id is the ChIJ... value from search_places, clarifying how agents should source this parameter. It also implies that country and language affect the returned details.

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 starts with 'Get full details for a Google Maps place by place_id', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the input (ChIJ... value from search_places) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_photos and place_reviews by returning a comprehensive set of data.

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 states that place_id is the value returned by search_places, providing clear prerequisite context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the 'full details' scope makes the tool's niche unambiguous.

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