place-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the data source (OSM Nominatim) and return fields, but lacks information on rate limits, authorization needs, data freshness, or error handling (e.g., when a place is not found).

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?

Three efficient sentences: first states functionality and returns, second provides usage context, third offers cost comparison. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists expected return fields comprehensively. However, it could mention that not all fields may be present for every place, or provide format details for coordinates/address.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: examples for 'query', default/max for 'limit', and advice to use >1 for ambiguous queries, which goes beyond the schema.

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 returns 'Enriched place and business details by name' using OSM Nominatim, listing specific fields like website, phone, email, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., geocode) by focusing on business metadata rather than just coordinates.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when you need the business metadata behind a location — not just where it is, but who runs it and how to reach it.' Also mentions cost advantage over Google Maps, helping with tool selection.

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