get_place_media

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does mention that it downloads media and returns output directories, implying file writes, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only (it likely is). The description provides some transparency but not full behavior context for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: the purpose and usage are stated in the first two sentences, and the Args section is a compact, structured list. No fluff, no redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage, and kind parameter. However, it leaves gaps: output_dir is never explained, error handling is absent, and side effects (file writes) are only hinted at via 'output dirs.' Given no annotations, the tool would benefit from a bit more detail to be fully complete for an agent.

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 compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter with its allowed values and default. However, it does not explain 'url' (though semantically obvious from the tool name) or 'output_dir' (implied from the return value but not explicitly defined). The partial coverage is useful but incomplete for the undocumented parameters.

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 a specific action: downloads gallery photos and/or videos, and explicitly frames it as 'media-only fetch' that skips verbose metadata. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_place_info (metadata) and fetch_maps_place (generic fetch), so an agent can tell it apart instantly.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the agent only needs the images/videos,' which gives a clear condition for selection. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the framing implies that for metadata or other data, other tools should be used. This is clear context, though it could be improved by naming exact siblings.

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