Get Place Card

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds pricing ($0.05) and API-key requirement, which are useful quirks beyond the annotations. But it names place_id as the key while the schema exposes three optional identifiers, an unresolved behavioral gap.

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 sentence, em-dash summary of return fields, parenthetical cost and auth. Front-loaded verb+resource with zero 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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. But with 0% schema description coverage and three interchangeable-looking ID params, the description should clarify the parameter contract; naming only place_id is insufficient.

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 0% with 3 undocumented params. The description compensates by naming place_id as the lookup key, but is silent on id and business_contact_id, leaving ambiguity about which parameter actually selects the record.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch one saved place card) plus resource (business_contacts) and enumerates the returned fields (address, opening hours, affordability, notes). Clear against siblings like get_places (list) and get_place_visits.

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?

Implied usage (single-record lookup by place_id) is clear, but no when-to-use vs get_places, resolve_place, or enrich_place_from_google. The cost and auth note hint at a paid/authenticated path but don't route between alternatives.

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