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 genuine behavioral context beyond them by explaining that `enclosed_by` is the jurisdictional chain and that an empty chain marks an orphaned, event-minted place, which helps the agent interpret results. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown 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 short paragraphs, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph earns its space by explaining a non-obvious returned field, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 correctly carries the return-shape burden by listing the fields. For a one-parameter read tool that is close to complete; only error/not-found behavior and the coordinate format are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `place` parameter is documented as 'Handle or gramps_id'. The description's use of 'handles' loosely corroborates the input but adds no format, resolution, or ambiguity-handling detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Read one place') and enumerates what comes back: name, title, type, enclosure, coordinates and URLs. This clearly separates it from the write siblings (add_place, update_place) and from other get_* readers on different resource types.

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 the verb and the required `place` handle, but the description never states when to reach for this versus get_object/query_objects or how it pairs with update_place. The second paragraph tells the agent how to interpret one returned field, not when to call the tool.

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