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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: no auth required, the data source (iNaturalist.org), and the returned fields (place_id, display name, place type). Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler: primary purpose is stated first, then the return content, then data provenance and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only lookup tool, the description covers purpose, usage intent, return content, auth, and data source. Output schema covers return structure, input schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety traits, leaving no material gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters fully (query with example values and minLength; per_page with 1-20 range and default 10). The description's mention of 'by name' reinforces the query parameter but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('iNaturalist place_id'), and the by-name query behavior. It also names downstream consumers (inaturalist.observations_search and inaturalist.species_counts), which clarifies exactly what this tool is for and distinguishes it from generic place-search siblings.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as a name-to-place_id resolver for use with two specific downstream tools, giving an agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not list exclusions or mention alternatives like geonames or nominatim, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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