tool_verify_place

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states read-only, no auth required, graceful degradation, and what returns. Could mention rate limits or errors, but sufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured with summary, return details, usage notes, and argument list. No redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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 no output schema, description explains return fields (verified, confidence, etc.). Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns completely for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage 0%, but description provides meaningful examples and explanations for each parameter (place_name, city, expected_type), compensating for schema gaps.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Verify a named place actually exists by cross-checking OSM, Foursquare, and OpenTripMap.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like tool_geocode.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before presenting any specific restaurant, hotel, or attraction to the user — especially when the name came from an LLM rather than a live API. Do not use for checking business hours or current availability; this only confirms existence. Use tool_geocode if you only need coordinates for a city or landmark.'

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