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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation returns one record, implying a read, but it does not mention what happens when the id is invalid or not found, whether a full or partial record is returned, or any authentication/error behavior. The minimal 'Return one place record' leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that carries all essential information with zero filler. It names the action, the resource, and the parameter's origin in the fewest possible words. Every word in the description 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?

For a tool with one integer parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: what it returns and where the id comes from. The only notable omissions are failure behavior and return field details, which are secondary for selecting and invoking a simple get-by-id tool. The combination of concise description and simple schema makes this adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'id: integer' property. It adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the id comes from search_places, telling the agent the source and nature of the value. However, it does not elaborate on the format, scope, or uniqueness of the id beyond that origin, so compensation is partial and moderate.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('one place record'), and ties the identifier to a sibling tool ('the id returned from search_places'). This clearly distinguishes it from search_places (plural results) and the other listing siblings. The agent immediately knows this is a single-record fetch by ID.

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 the correct usage pattern: call this after search_places to retrieve the full record for a specific id. It provides clear context for when to use this tool versus search_places, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions. This is clear context without formal when-not guidance, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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