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

The description communicates a read-only operation consistent with the readOnlyHint, and it adds useful behavioral detail about the returned information (address, phone, hours, popular times). It does not mention failure modes or what happens if neither ID is valid, but the key behavior is well conveyed.

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 short sentences deliver purpose, prerequisite, and expected output with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to know when to call the toolestrategies: after a google_maps_search request, using one of the returned IDs `data_id` or `place_id`. It provides enough return information despite having no output schema, but it could be slightly more explicit about what happens when neither ID is supplied.

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%, and the description reinforces the dependency on google_maps_search IDs. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, and the gl parameter's role is only covered by the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific place'), and it distinguishes this tool from google_maps_search by requiring an ID from search results. This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately clear.

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 description explains the required precondition: a data_id or place_id obtained from google_maps_search. It clearly indicates when this tool should be used, though it does not explicitly name which sibling tools should be used instead when search results are not yet available.

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