get_place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the operationally useful 'Works without credentials' fact that the annotations do not convey. It also explains the semantic meaning of the returned dates, which is real domain behavior rather than a restatement. It stops short of describing response shape or any failure modes.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the auth note is a compact, high-value line. The middle prose about counties 'in being' is slightly meandering, but it still earns its place by explaining why the dates matter.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and an enumeration of returned fields (jurisdictional chain, type, coordinates, dates), the description is nearly sufficient for a single-item read. The main residual gap is disambiguation from the overlapping jurisdiction/children getters.

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% — the sole place_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example and a note that place lookups return one on every result. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with an explicit scope: 'Read one place: its jurisdictional chain, type, coordinates and dates.' That clearly separates it from the search_* siblings by cardinality. It never names an alternative, though, so the distinction from get_place_jurisdictions (which also returns a jurisdictional chain) must be inferred.

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 second paragraph gives a genuine research context ('check whether the county a record names was the county in being on the date the record was made'), which implies when the tool is valuable. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing among the several overlapping siblings (search_places, search_places_at_date, get_place_jurisdictions, get_place_children), leaving the agent to guess.

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