acquire_place

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description reveals the acquisition process: direct acquisition for free places, name-filtered reservation for taken/reserved ones, polling bounded by config.acquire_timeout, reservation drop, and error behavior on RPC failure or timeout. This is substantial additional transparency.

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: the first is a crisp front-loaded summary, the second elaborates the process and error handling. There is no fluff; every sentence adds technical value. It is appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity (potential polling, timeout, reservation lifecycle) and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers the acquisition path, timeout bounds, reservation cleanup, and error handling, which is sufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by identifying the sole parameter 'name' as the place name to acquire. It doesn't specify format or validation rules, but the meaning is clear from the opening sentence, and no other parameters exist.

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's function: 'Acquire a place by name for this session.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_places and release_place by focusing on acquisition. The additional detail about free vs. taken places further clarifies its unique role.

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 clear context: it's used to acquire a place for the current session, with specific behavior for free vs. taken places. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like reserve or show_place, but the session-scoped acquisition purpose is clear enough to imply when to use it, without stating exclusions.

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