places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that filtering is optional and the default returns all places, but doesn't address critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (despite 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), or what happens with large result sets. For a tool with 18 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two clear sentences that directly state the tool's core functionality and default behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the essential information in minimal space.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't help an agent understand when to choose this tool over alternatives, doesn't explain behavioral constraints, and doesn't clarify what 'all known places' means in practice. For a search/filter tool with rich parameter options, more context about use cases and limitations is needed.

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 schema fully documents all 18 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that criteria are optional. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond the all-places return, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find places, filtering by optional criteria.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('places'), and mentions the optional filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (like 'places_near_location' or 'places_near_place'), which would require 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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'If no criteria are set, you will get back all known places.' This explains the default behavior but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., 'places_near_location' for proximity searches or 'country_places' for country-specific queries). There's no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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