get_place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: that the tool 'works without credentials,' which is notable in a toolset that includes auth_status, plus an explanation of what the returned dates represent. It stops short of describing error behavior or lookup-miss handling.

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 sentence one and the whole thing stays short. The middle paragraph is slightly discursive for a one-parameter read tool, but each sentence contributes distinct information (why the dates matter, credential requirement) rather than restating the schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does list the returned facets (jurisdictional chain, type, coordinates, dates). It also flags the no-credentials property. Minor gaps remain around date formatting and behavior for an unknown place_id, but nothing essential for invoking the 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that place_id is a FamilySearch place description id with an example and where to obtain one. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Read), resource (one place), and enumerates what comes back: jurisdictional chain, type, coordinates, dates. That is enough for an agent to know what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_place_jurisdictions or get_place_children, which also touch jurisdictional data.

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 middle paragraph supplies a genuine use rationale (checking whether a county named on a record existed on the record's date), which implies when the tool is worthwhile. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance against search_places, search_places_at_date, or get_place_jurisdictions. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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