get_place_details

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the 'detail' parameter controls which fields are returned (enterprise vs atmosphere) and that atmosphere 'may be disabled'. This provides concrete behavioral context about varying data availability, which is not captured by annotations alone.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, the second specifies the input source, and the third explains the critical parameter. Every sentence adds value and the structure is logical.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers both parameters and notes the behavioral nuance of the atmosphere tier. While it omits explicit error handling or rate limits, the tool is a simple read operation with low complexity, making the description sufficiently 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the place_id parameter's source and the detail parameter's effect on cost and returned fields. It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing the trade-offs between enterprise and atmosphere tiers, though it does not enumerate all possible values for detail.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'everything Google holds about one place', listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling search and geocoding tools by explicitly requiring a place_id from a search or autocomplete, making its specific role evident.

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 implies usage after obtaining a place_id by stating 'Takes a place id from a search or autocomplete.' It also advises on the detail parameter for cost control. However, it does not explicitly indicate when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like search_places_by_text or geocode_place_id, leaving the guidance implicit.

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