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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description goes further with genuinely non-obvious behavior: `open_now` is precomputed (not raw hours the agent must reason over), `attributes` are slugs requiring resolution, and `delivery` deep-links match search_places output. It omits error behavior for an unknown slug, which keeps it off a 5.

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 verb + resource + identifying key before the field enumeration, so an agent can stop reading early if that's all it needs. The return-field list is dense but each item is a distinct piece of information rather than filler.

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 one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the notable fields. What's missing is edge behavior (invalid/unknown slug) and any hint about cost or rate limits, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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% — the single `slug` parameter has both a description ('URL slug of the place.') and an example. The description adds only the word 'URL slug' in prose, no format, casing, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get full details for a specific place by its URL slug') followed by an explicit inventory of what the response contains. The mention that the `delivery` array is 'the same ... search_places returns' anchors it against the sibling list tool, so an agent can tell a single-record detail fetch from a search without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'by its URL slug' tells the agent it needs a slug, which signals a follow-up call after search_places. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no named alternative for the detail-lookup case (search_places is referenced only as a format comparison, not as a routing alternative).

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