explore_place

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description goes further by disclosing the exact return payload (events, people, geography, Mermaid diagram) and concrete worked examples for Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. This is valuable behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then returns, then two illustrative examples, then usage context and the sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place and none is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden itself, which it does by specifying events, people, geographic data, and a Mermaid diagram. Combined with the named sibling for scope comparison, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (the schema itself supplies examples like Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Egypt), the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what a place yields but adds no new syntax or format constraints 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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (full biblical history of a place), then enumerates exactly what comes back: events, births/deaths, geographic data, and a Mermaid diagram. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_name, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering context ('questions about biblical geography or a location's significance across salvation history') and routes to the alternative, noting lookup_name with type="place" returns only basic info and immediate connections. This is a clear when-to-use plus when-to-use-the-other statement.

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