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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing the result cap (up to six), result ordering (best first), per-result contents (coordinates, plus a bounding box for areas), and the failure mode for unsupported countries. The openWorldHint=false annotation is consistent with the stated country restriction, so nothing is contradicted.

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 tight sentences: purpose and output shape first, then intended use, then the coverage constraint. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 output schema and a single parameter, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: count, ordering, and per-item fields are all specified, and the coverage limitation plus remediation URL closes the main operational gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by characterising what counts as a query (city, district, street, or full address as a person would write it), which sets expectations for matching behaviour beyond the schema's example strings. No format or length detail is added, so it does not reach 5.

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 ('Finds a place by name') plus the accepted input taxonomy (city, district, street, full address), and clarifies it is not the same thing as building search by routing the output toward 'a building lookup or an area search'. An agent can distinguish it from search_buildings, find_buildings, and get_building without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('Use to get the coordinates or the area of a place for a building lookup or an area search') and a hard exclusion: places outside baseray's building coverage return no match, with a URL for requesting a country. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when to prefer one lookup path over another, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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