Places

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: query switches from saved places to open search, near falls back to Uber's guessed rider position, and results include Google place IDs and airline terminal details.

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 dense but front-loads the two main modes and result shape without filler. The parenthetical structure makes it slightly less scannable, but every sentence carries useful information.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers both modes, search location fallback, and key result identifiers. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interaction semantics: no query lists saved places, near accepts 'lat,lng' or a saved place label with a fallback to guessed position, and the place id can be passed as pickup or drop-off.

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 resource and its two modes: saved places when no query, Uber place search when a query is supplied. It does not explicitly contrast sibling ride/trip tools, but those are not close alternatives, so ambiguity is low.

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?

It gives explicit parameter-driven usage: omit query to list saved places, supply query to search, and use near to constrain the search area. It does not discuss when not to use the tool or name sibling alternatives.

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