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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the result aggregates at the most local level available and tags each value with whether it describes the place, its department, or its country. It still doesn't say what happens on an unknown place or how large the payload is.

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 that front-loads the core action and then qualifies the aggregation behavior. The parenthetical topic list is long and partly duplicates the schema enum, which is minor padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does reasonably well by describing per-value provenance and the local-first aggregation rule. Gaps remain around failure behavior for unresolved places and response size, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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, including the code-or-name format for "place" and the domain enum. The description's topic list partially mirrors the enum values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Returns everything datosmcp holds about one place") and enumerates the topic areas covered, so an agent can distinguish it from find_indicators, search_data, or list_places. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 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 implied by the scope: use it when you want a consolidated profile of a single place rather than querying indicators individually. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like describe_indicator or search_data, and no stated prerequisites.

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