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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds the exclusive-or input contract and that features/geometry are optional, plus the underlying REST call (GET /v2/place-details). No auth, rate-limit or failure-mode context, but for a read-only lookup the added contract detail is meaningful.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the input rule, then the REST 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?

For a read-only detail lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input selection and optional feature expansion adequately. It does not describe the shape of the returned detail payload, but that is the only notable gap.

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 individual params are documented, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema only hints at — the id-vs-lat/lon mutual exclusivity. That relational constraint is the key thing an agent must get right, so it exceeds 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 distinguishes itself from geoapify_places by being the detail-lookup follow-up rather than the search. The parenthetical 'optionally geometry/features' scopes the breadth precisely.

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?

Clearly specifies the input conditions: provide `id` (the `place_id` returned by geoapify_places) OR both `lat` and `lon`. This explicitly links to the sibling tool that produces the id and gives a clear selection rule. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g. when reverse geocoding is preferable), so it stops short of a 5.

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