Resolve a place photo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that the tool converts a resource name into a URL, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that resolving returns a temporary URL. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and immediately following with the usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 schema and output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It provides the key upstream dependency and the basic operation. Minor gaps include no mention of URL expiration or permissions, but for a focused resolver tool with rich structured fields, this is largely complete.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (resolve) and resource (a Google Places photo resource name into a photo media URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like goplaces_details, which returns place data, though it explicitly names goplaces_details as the source of photo names. It does not differentiate from all siblings, but the operation is clear.

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?

Explicitly names the context in which this tool is used: 'Use with photo names returned by goplaces_details(include_photos=true).' That tells an agent both the upstream dependency and the prerequisite flag, which is strong guidance. It does not state when not to use it or offer alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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