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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: what fields are returned (address, phone, hours, holiday_hours with YYYY-MM-DD dates, reviews) and a current limitation that photos and popular times are often missing. Minor gaps remain, such as how reviews are limited or how invalid IDs behave, but the description adds clear value beyond 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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then requirements, return details, and alternative routing. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information with no wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job describing the returned fields and the holiday_hours format. It could be slightly more complete by explaining review limits or error behavior for invalid IDs, but it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by stating where data_id and place_id must come from (google_maps_search results) and reinforcing that at least one is required, which helps an agent prepare valid inputs.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific place from Google Maps') and explicitly differentiates this detail lookup from the sibling google_maps_search by requiring IDs from those results. An agent can readily distinguish it from search and other Google tools.

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 states the prerequisite (data_id or place_id from google_maps_search) and the at-least-one constraint. It also explicitly routes agents to google_maps_photos for photos and google_place with kgmid for popular times, naming the exact alternatives and conditions.

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