get_place_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'No media downloaded' (a key side-effect avoidance) and emphasizes 'metadata-only' fetch, implying a read operation. The time estimate (~20-40s) adds performance context. While it does not mention error handling, pagination, or rate limits, the explicit 'no media' behavior and simplicity of the operation justify a 4.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The core purpose and key differentiator ('No media downloaded') are front-loaded, and the use condition is clearly stated. Every sentence adds value; the time estimate is optional but not wasteful. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for calling the tool correctly. The 'output_dir' parameter is unexplained, and there is no clarification on the URL format or the tool's scope (e.g., whether it returns a single place or handles multiple). The exclusion of annotations and 0% schema descriptions place the burden on the description, which it only partially meets. The description is adequate for a basic call, but the ambiguity around output_dir and input expectations makes it incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It fails to do so: it does not mention that 'url' is the required input or what it should contain (e.g., a Google Maps URL), and 'output_dir' is completely unexplained—its purpose is ambiguous despite a default value. The description lists returned fields but provides no guidance on how to set parameters, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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 clearly states the tool fetches metadata-only business info and lists exact fields (name, phone, website, rating, address, plus code, hours, coordinates). The phrase 'No media downloaded' explicitly differentiates it from the media-focused sibling, and the use-case ('only needs business info') further distinguishes it. The verb 'fetch' plus specific resource makes it unambiguous.

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 description provides a clear condition for use: 'Use when the agent only needs business info.' It also implies when not to use (e.g., when media is needed) by stating 'No media downloaded.' However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly contrast with fetch_maps_place or list_maps_places, so it lacks a fully explicit routing guidance.

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