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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or what 'place information' is returned. It only restates the input contract, leaving the agent blind to runtime behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is redundant: each of type/id/lat/long appears once in the JSON format examples and again in the 'Args' list, doubling the length for the same information.

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 schema-less, annotation-less tool with conditional required fields, the description adequately covers the input contract but says nothing about the shape of the returned place data or failure modes, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does the heavy lifting: it enumerates type, id, lat, long, marks type as required and id as 'required only for type=id', and gives concrete float examples. This substantially compensates for the schema, which misleadingly lists all four fields as required.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get place information from ID or latitude/longitude,' so an agent immediately knows this resolves a location to place data. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'geocode', nor clarify the ID-lookup mode versus the coordinate mode as distinct behaviors.

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 conditionally ('To obtain infos via ID...' vs 'via lat/long...'), which tells the agent which input shape to supply. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the 'geocode' sibling, so the agent gets no help choosing between the forward and reverse operations.

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