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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: each result contains the bounding box, place type, and containment chain, and place geometry is deliberately stripped to save bandwidth, citing a concrete 247 KB payload reduction. This gives the agent a clear picture of response behavior and performance tradeoffs.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct and useful information: purpose, usage modes with exclusivity, result contents, and payload-stripping behavior. There is no repetition of schema details and no fluff, and the most important decision information is front-loaded.

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 two-mode lookup tool with no required parameters SF DA, the description covers the decision point, the mutual-exclusion rule, what each result contains, and an important performance behavior. The schema and output schema fill in the remaining structural details, so nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including mutual exclusivity, corner constraints, and the per_page behavior on only the bounding-box arm. The description reinforces the q-vs-box framing but adds little new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 two things the tool does: resolving a place name to a place id and listing places covering a bounding box. It is explicit about the resource ('place') and the two modes, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like inaturalist_resolve_name, so the differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance for both modes: pass q for a prefix match, pass all four bounding-box corners to list covering places. It also states the critical constraint that exactly one of the two modes must be used, never both, which is exactly the usage decision an agent needs.

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