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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one piece of behavioral value — that the response includes lockdown state — but says nothing about pagination, error behavior, or authorization beyond what the endpoint path implies.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing padded, though the endpoint string is arguably redundant with the tool name.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete, and the lockdown-state hint partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, with no output schema the description could say more about what a place record contains.

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%: place_id is typed as a positive integer with that stated in the schema itself. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no syntax, range, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('One place by id') and contrasts implicitly with the sibling list tool kisi_list_places by specifying a single record. It also names the underlying endpoint. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from kisi_list_places, but the singular scope is unambiguous.

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?

'One place by id' implies the usage condition (you already have a numeric place id and want a single record), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to siblings like kisi_list_places. Adequate but inferred.

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