neshan_get_point_by_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is expensive and only works for owner-claimed places. However, it omits details about error cases (invalid hash, unverified hash), idempotency, or rate limiting.

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 two sentences long, each serving a purpose: stating the function and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids repetition or fluff.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite (verified flag), and expense concern. It lists example output fields (address, category, hours, region) which partially compensates for the missing output schema. Could be improved by mentioning error handling or output format.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a description linking hash to neshan_search results. The description adds the critical condition that it only works for verified places, providing context beyond the schema. For a single parameter, this is well-handled.

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 it fetches full details using a poiHash from neshan_search results. It specifies the resource (place details) and the action (fetch), and distinguishes from siblings like neshan_search which returns a list, as well as other tools like directions or geocoding.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: only for items with verified_details_available: true, and cautions against blanket use due to expense. It implies usage after neshan_search but does not explicitly name alternatives for non-verified places or bulk needs.

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