get_place_children

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint) and openness (openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds an auth-relevant fact: it works without a token. It stops short of describing return shape or any size/pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with the sibling contrast and use cases. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and safety annotations already present, the definition covers purpose, direction, and auth adequately. It could say more about the returned hierarchy depth or format, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including an example value ('442'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no further meaning about what a place_id is or where to obtain it; 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 ('List the places directly inside a jurisdiction') and immediately frames its scope against the sibling get_place_jurisdictions by naming the opposite traversal direction. An agent can distinguish it from every other place-related sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use scenarios (placing an unlocatable town, seeing a county's historical contents) and explicitly names the complementary tool it contrasts with. The selection condition versus get_place_jurisdictions is stated, not inferred.

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