get_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses the tool's hard geographic limit, the exact behavior when the location is out of market (refuse and do not call), and the policy when a legitimate query returns zero results. It also notes that the open_now filter is purely a filter and never expands scope. These are behavioral traits beyond what any schema would encode.

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 longer than typical but every sentence earns its place. It leads with the primary purpose, then states the hard geographic scope in bold caps, then gives an explicit out-of-market protocol with a quoted message, and finally addresses the zero-result honesty rule. The structure uses clear sections and capitalization for emphasis, ensuring the critical constraints stand out. No filler.

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 read-only query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, its geographic limit, how to handle out-of-market requests, and how to report empty results. It also implicitly signals that the tool is non-destructive (query only). Nothing an agent needs to safely and correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 80%, and the schema itself already gives detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., neighborhood only accepts SF Bay Area names, open_now is a filter). The tool description adds value by grouping the filters and reinforcing the global geographic constraint across all parameters. It clarifies that 'ratings' maps to the sort parameter and that 'newly opened' maps to newly_opened_days. This is a meaningful supplement to the schema, though much of the detail is already in the parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Query curated places filtered by neighborhood, open-now status, ratings, or newly opened window' – a specific verb, resource, and filter list. It immediately distinguishes 'places' from the sibling tools 'get_neighborhoods' and 'get_events', and goes on to state the hard geographic scope. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 contains an explicit OUT-OF-MARKET PROTOCOL: if the requested location is outside the SF Bay Area, the agent must not call the tool, must instead state the exact refusal message, and must never fabricate data. It also tells the agent to report zero results honestly rather than inventing venues. This gives clear when-to/ when-not-to usage rules and even prescribes the fallback script.

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