place_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint true. The description usefully specifies the external target ('Sends the name to Wikidata') and flags partial coverage with 'with years where known' and 'where that attachment is known'. It does not add auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior, and the openWorld disclosure largely duplicates the annotation.

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 returned fields are front-loaded after the verb, which is good. However, the single em-dash-laden sentence is dense and back-loads the 'Sends the name to Wikidata' note, which could be stated as a short separate clause without the narrative phrasing.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the read-only/open-world annotations cover the safety profile. The one real gap is that the lang parameter's meaning and defaults are never addressed, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%: the required name parameter is documented in the schema (with a precision example) while the lang enum has no description in either place. The description adds nothing about lang or about input format beyond what the schema already carries, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds value.

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 description gives a specific verb+resource (look a place up in Wikidata) and enumerates the returned fields — administrative units with years, coordinates, Wikipedia article, and church attachment. It never names or contrasts a sibling tool, but the purpose is unmistakable and distinct from the genealogy-utility siblings like name_variants or estimate_birth_year.

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?

It implies a usage context — 'a first step to the uezd, province and parish of a village' — so an agent can infer this belongs at the start of a place-research flow. It gives no explicit when-not condition and names no alternative tool, so guidance remains implicit.

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