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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Geoapify REST: GET /v2/place-details' is consistent with that read-only profile. The description adds the optional-features behavior, but says nothing about rate limits, error cases, or what a missing place yields — modest added value over 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the argument contract and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a well-known 'place details' operation the description covers the input contract and the optional feature-set behavior sufficiently for correct invocation. It could say a bit more about what the returned detail actually contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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 every parameter including lang and features is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id-vs-lat/lon mutual exclusivity but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information ... for a place') and clarifies the optional geometry/features scope. It also ties itself to the geoapify_places sibling by naming where the `place_id` comes from, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like geoapify_geocode_reverse or geoapify_places.

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 gives call-shape guidance ('provide either id OR both lat and lon'), which is genuinely useful selection logic, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as reverse geocoding or the places search. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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