get_place_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only metadata lookup by saying 'metadata' and listing returned fields, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not fully transparent.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and returned fields, and the second gives a practical usage context. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter metadata lookup with no output schema, the description adequately names the key returned data fields and the intended use case. It does not explain return formatting or edge cases, but the scope is small enough that the description is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains placeId and universeId well. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions; it only names output fields rather than clarifying the input parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Open Cloud metadata for a specific place within a universe, listing exact fields returned (name, description, server size, server fill behaviour). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_universe_info and get_server_status by scoping to a single place rather than a universe or status endpoint.

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 a concrete use case: use it when performance metrics broken down by Place point to a specific place ID that needs identification. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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