get_place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: that `enclosed_by` forms the jurisdictional chain and that a missing chain signals an orphaned, event-minted place. It stops short of describing error behavior for a bad handle.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is read and what comes back, followed by a short interpretive note. Every sentence carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is doing real work for the agent, and the enclosed_by/orphan explanation covers the tool's main subtlety. It is not fully complete: error/not-found behavior and the exact response shape remain unspecified.

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% and the schema already documents `place` as a handle or gramps_id, so the description need not restate it. The description's `enclosed_by` discussion concerns an output field rather than the input parameter, so it adds no input-side semantics. 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb ('Read one place') plus the resource and enumerates the returned fields (name, title, type, enclosure, coordinates, URLs). The resource is unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other get_* siblings (get_person, get_event, get_source) 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?

Usage is implied by 'Read one place' with a required place handle, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the generic alternatives (get_object, query_objects) that overlap with this tool. The second paragraph is domain interpretation, not routing advice.

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