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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it returns the most local value available and labels each figure as describing the place, its department, or its country. It does not discuss return shape or size, which is a minor omission.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the geographic-fallback behavior trailing. Every clause carries information, though the long domain parenthetical makes it slightly heavy.

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 enrichment tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (multi-domain profile) and the key subtlety that values may describe a coarser geography than requested. It does not cover return volume, pagination or error behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented (place accepts a code like GT0901 or a name; domains is an enum list). The description's domain parenthetical overlaps with the domains enum and adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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-and-resource ('Returns everything DatosIA holds about one place') and enumerates the covered domains, so the agent knows this is a single-place profiling/aggregation tool rather than a search. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (list_places, search_places, resolve_place), which keeps it just below 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the scope ('everything about one place') naturally indicates when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as search_places for discovery or resolve_place for code lookup. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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