get_place_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the direction of traversal relative to get_place_jurisdictions and the auth fact 'Works without a token'. It stops short of describing return shape or nesting depth, but for a read-only lookup the added context is substantial.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The core action leads, the sibling contrast and the practical use cases follow, and the auth note is a brief trailing clause.

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-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, direction, use cases, and auth. The main remaining gap is what the result set looks like (fields, depth semantics), which is not described, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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% with a single documented place_id, so the schema already carries the parameter contract. The description adds only the notion that children are 'immediate' (one level down), which is modest value beyond the schema; 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 ('List') and resource ('places directly inside a jurisdiction'), and explicitly frames itself against the sibling get_place_jurisdictions as the downward complement of that upward walk. An agent can distinguish the two traversal tools without opening either 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 concrete when-to-use scenarios: placing a town referenced in a record, and seeing what a county contained at a given time. It also names the complementary sibling and the directional relationship, so alternatives are explicit.

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