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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the breadth of data returned (a full venue card rather than a summary), but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid ID or whether any fields may be absent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but every item tells the agent what to expect back. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right way to compensate, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. Only gaps are error/invalid-ID behavior and any indication of what is omitted when data is unavailable.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema itself states it comes from search results. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully documented params 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 names the resource (площадка) and enumerates exactly what the card contains — halls, capacity, catering, parking, accommodation, price, metro, photos. That makes the tool's purpose unmistakable, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling search_places or list_place_selections, so the agent must infer this is the by-ID detail lookup.

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 schema's 'ID из результатов поиска' hints that this is the follow-up call after a search, but the description itself never states when to use get_place versus search_places or the list_* siblings. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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