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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the 20-id batch cap and the fact that unmatched ids are returned alongside results (partial-success handling), which an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose (place detail) and then the two scoping facts (batch size, not-found reporting). Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the key edge case of missing ids and the batch limit. It is nearly complete for a simple lookup, missing only routing guidance against the singular and search siblings.

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 schema already documents lang, country, and the comma-separated place_ids format and limits. The description restates the batch bound but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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 (place detail) and resource (places) with explicit batch scope 'up to 20 place ids in one call'. It implicitly differentiates from the singular apple_maps_place by the batch framing, but never names the sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 'up to 20 place ids in one call' phrasing implies when to use it (bulk lookups), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no pointer to apple_maps_place for single lookups or apple_maps_search for finding ids. Usage is implied, not stated.

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