dv_place_mapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond that - unresolved identifiers stay unverified (partial success rather than hard failure) - but says nothing about error handling, limits, or what 'unverified' means downstream.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the input->output mapping comes first and the edge-case clause is compactly appended. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the core is adequate. Still missing is any hint about input shape/validity or what an agent should do with 'unverified' results, which matters for a mapping tool used in a pipeline.

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% for the single required 'ids' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does partially explain it: the ids are legacy public place identifiers. However it omits format details (integer array, 1-50 items) that the schema also leaves unlabeled, so compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb ('Map') and both resources (old public place identifiers -> current IDs), so the agent knows exactly what transformation happens. It is distinguishable from lookup siblings like dv_geocode or dv_locate, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with dv_resolve_entities, which sounds related.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as dv_resolve_entities or dv_geocode, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'old public place identifiers', which is context rather than guidance.

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