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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot carry: language fallback to English when the requested locale is unavailable, and a CC BY-SA 4.0 attribution obligation when quoting the returned source — a constraint the agent must honor in output.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines output and language behavior, the second states a licensing obligation. The core purpose is front-loaded with no preamble or redundancy.

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 burden of describing the return value, and it does so adequately by characterizing it as a short intro text plus a citable source. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what happens when no article exists for the place (empty result vs. error) or how long 'short' is.

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 `map`, `place`, and `locale` are all documented in structured fields, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's note about English fallback does clarify `locale` behavior beyond the schema's terse 'default en', but it adds nothing about `map` or `place` selection.

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 states a specific verb and resource — retrieve a short introduction to a place — with the language behavior qualified inline. It is clearly distinct from search_places and list_maps in what it returns, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that distinction.

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 only implied: the schema hints that `place` should come from search_places, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement of when a caller should prefer search_places first. An agent can infer the lookup-after-search workflow but must do the inferring.

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