Autocomplete a place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only that it uses Google Places and yields suggestions plus place IDs, which is modest context beyond the structured data and omits things like billing/session implications despite a session_token parameter.

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 sentences, no filler, purpose front-loaded before the usage clause. Every phrase carries weight.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description only needs to state purpose and rough usage, which it does. The main omission is routing guidance against sibling lookup tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about input format, bias vs. restriction behavior, or defaults, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Autocomplete') and resource ('partial place or query string'), plus the backing service ('Google Places'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with goplaces_search or goplaces_resolve, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use to turn partial user input into place/query suggestions and place IDs' gives a clear triggering condition (partial input), which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions, so the agent isn't told when to prefer goplaces_search or goplaces_details instead.

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