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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's additions are about return payload composition (rules plus sources with capture dates and quotes), not about behavior such as freshness, size, or failure on unknown ids — and since an output schema exists, that content is largely redundant.

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?

Roughly half the description is a near-verbatim restatement of the preceding sentence — 'The full record for one place... every dog rule with its display text, the rules list, and each source with its URL, publisher, capture date and quote' is then repeated as 'Full rules and sources for one place: every fact with its display text, the rules list, and each source with its URL, publisher, capture date and quote.' The alias notice and the usage sentence are front-loaded and well placed, but the duplication wastes the reader's attention.

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-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything essential: what the record contains, where the id comes from, and an example. Only the alias relationship's operational consequence (should new clients avoid it?) is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema with an example id ('fort-funston'). The description contributes only a second example id ('carmel-beach') and never mentions the response_format enum, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

States a specific verb (retrieve the full record) and resource (one place, by id) and enumerates the payload: dog rules with display text, the rules list, and sources with URL, publisher, capture date and quote. It also self-identifies as an alias of dogpolicies_get_place, which lets an agent place it in the family. Clarity is slightly undercut because the second sentence restates the first with drifted wording ('every dog rule' vs 'every fact'), muddying whether they describe the same thing.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after dogpolicies_search_places or dogpolicies_find_hotels, which supply the required id, and gives a concrete example invocation. 'Kept for older clients' signals that new callers should prefer the canonical dogpolicies_get_place, though it never states that preference outright or says when not to use this alias.

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