place_history

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 that the name is sent to Wikidata and that administrative-unit information includes years only where known, which usefully discloses both external transmission and incomplete data. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return values, then a short operational note. No sentence is wasted, and the key information comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, though the description helpfully summarizes them. Annotations cover the safety and openness profile, but the unexplained lang parameter and lack of language-selection guidance remain gaps given the 50% schema coverage.

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 only 50%: the name parameter is well described in the schema, but the lang parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description only says 'Sends the name to Wikidata,' which repeats the obvious rather than explaining when to use en versus ru or what lang affects.

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: looking a place up in Wikidata. It further specifies the returned content — administrative units with years, coordinates, and Wikipedia article — and frames itself as a first step toward uezd, province, and parish. This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling research and genealogy tools.

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 phrase 'a first step to the uezd, province and parish of a village' implies when the tool is useful in a research workflow. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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