geocode_place_id

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about output content (coordinates, normalized address, address components) and quality characteristics (precision, cost). It does not cover edge cases like invalid place_ids, but for a simple read-only lookup with annotations, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds valuable comparison guidance. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 only one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, what input it expects (place_id from a prior search), and how it compares to related tools. No additional details are needed for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, place_id, has no schema description (coverage 0%). The description adds essential semantic meaning by specifying it is 'a place id returned by a place search,' clarifying the source and format expectations. This compensates fully for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('place id') and enumerates the return content ('coordinates, normalized address, and address components'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is 'More precise than geocoding the place's name' (geocode_address) and 'cheaper than a full details lookup' (get_place_details).

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 states when to use this tool: when you have a 'place id returned by a place search' and need location data. It also names alternatives and trade-offs: 'More precise than geocoding the place's name, and cheaper than a full details lookup when location is all you need.' This gives clear decision guidance.

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