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 that results include related "sources", which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or result shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with the return content appended; the bilingual duplication is redundant but each clause earns its place and there is no 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential: what it returns (a place plus its sources). Only edge-case behavior such as a missing id is left unaddressed, which is minor.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should ideally specify the id format (opaque string? composite?). It only says "por su id", adding little beyond the parameter name, though with one obvious required param the practical gap is small.

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 (get one place) and scopes it to an id lookup, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling search tools buscar_lugares/buscar_negocios. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it isn't a full 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?

"by id" implies retrieval of a known entity rather than search, which suggests when to prefer it over buscar_lugares. There is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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