get_place_info

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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but fails to mention any constraints like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the place doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what data is retrieved but omits critical details like return format, error handling, or how 'game settings' are structured. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent under-informed about execution and results.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable here since no parameters exist, but it could have mentioned implicit inputs like context or defaults. Baseline is 4 as per rules for zero parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the target resources ('place ID, name, and game settings'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_info' or 'get_instance_properties', which might retrieve similar metadata but for different entities, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get_' tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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