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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds little behavioral context beyond the basic 'mark as visited' action, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concrete list of place examples and a clear pointer to search_places.

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 low-complexity tool with only 2 parameters, a fully documented schema, and safe annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens on duplicate visits or how output is returned, but nothing essential appears to be missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline applies. The description reinforces that the place parameter comes from search_places, but the schema already documents this and the notes parameter, so the description adds no substantial semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a specific place as visited' and gives examples of what counts as a place. It is clear enough on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_places_to_trip or add_country.

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 description implies usage context: use this when marking a specific place as visited and pass an id from search_places. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from add_places_to_trip, add_country, and add_region.

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