Place categories

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (grouped categories with slugs) and that the slugs are the exact vocabulary the sibling tools accept. It omits any note on stability/ordering of the category list, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the identification of the tool front-loaded before the when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'with the slug bl_nearby takes' is slightly convoluted but is resolved by the following parenthetical examples, so it costs little.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so at a useful granularity (grouped categories plus slugs, with example slugs). It is complete enough to call correctly; only sample group names or slug formatting could add more.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It still usefully clarifies that the meaningful output is the slug value rather than the human-readable group label, which is the one semantic ambiguity a parameterless lookup could carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list place categories), and immediately disambiguates the payload as 'the slug bl_nearby takes' plus the grouping structure. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bl_search or bl_place, which return places rather than category vocabulary.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('when you need the exact slug') and names the three consumer tools — bl_nearby, bl_nearest_by_drive, bl_along_route — with concrete example values (pharmacy, hospital, gas-station, atm, parking). The agent knows both the trigger condition and the downstream purpose without inference.

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