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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot: the no-slug mode returns a catalogue of questions with slug and result count, while the slug mode returns that question's places — this tells the agent the call shape changes based on input.

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 leads, followed by the mode-specific behavior, and every sentence carries information. The parenthetical field list and double example add length but genuinely illustrate the curated-question concept, so they mostly earn their 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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to explain the two invocation modes, which it does. It leaves minor ambiguity — whether slug needs an exact match and whether limit/offset apply to the question list or the place results — but nothing that blocks a correct call.

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 the baseline of 3 applies; every parameter including slug, limit, offset and response_format is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the slug's role as a selector obtained from the listing mode, but adds no syntax, matching rules, or clarity on which parameters apply to which mode.

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 names a specific resource (ready-made list answers about places that allow dogs) and gives concrete example questions, so an agent knows this returns curated Q&A-style listings rather than arbitrary place search. It stops short of naming the sibling (e.g. dogpolicies_search_places or dogpolicies_find_hotels) that would be the free-text alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 two-mode split ("Without a slug... With a slug...") implicitly tells the agent what each call form is for, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling search/find tools, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing slug before requesting places.

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