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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses the cost ($0.15) and output scope (hours, reviews, photos), which are important. However, it omits any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency. The cost is a useful addition, but overall transparency is partial.

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 two sentences with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: specifying the output, linking to the required parameter, and noting the cost. Front-loaded with the tool's primary function.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, outputs, and cost. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly alongside siblings.

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 the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description of place_id. The phrase 'by place_id' merely restates the parameter. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 states the tool retrieves 'Full hours, reviews, photos for a restaurant by place_id.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource (restaurant details), and the resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like search_restaurants. No tautology.

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 through the parameter description (place_id from search_restaurants) and the cost note. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any when-not conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its role after search.

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