add_poi

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the new POI is immediately public, whether duplicates are detected via google_place_id, what permissions are required, or what a successful call returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the tool's 14-parameter surface.

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 mutation tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and only one documented parameter, the description is far too thin. It omits return behavior, visibility/publication effects, deduplication behavior, and any field-level guidance the schema leaves uncovered.

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?

14 parameters with only 29% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them – not the 13 optional fields, not required-vs-optional behavior, not the string-typed latitude/longitude quirk. With low coverage, the description was obliged to compensate and does not.

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?

Clear verb + resource ('Add a point-of-interest') plus a concrete destination ('Things-to-Do page') and examples that disambiguate the concept from add_vendor, add_guest, or add_faq. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'point-of-interest' framing is specific enough to distinguish it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing Things-to-Do page), and no mention of the natural alternatives list_pois / update_poi / remove_poi. The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling names alone.

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