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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnly, closed-world), it discloses the candidate examination cap (200), the result cap (20) with counts/truncation, a hard dependency on a geography-enabled index release with a defined failure mode, score/distance caveats, and that a missing result is not proof of absence. That is unusually rich behavioral context an agent could not get from the annotations or schema.

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 prose is dense and mostly earns its place, but it is not front-loaded: the actual purpose appears in the third sentence while a performance tip leads. Sentence fragments ('Explicit name never embeds') trade grammar for byte savings, which slightly hurts first-pass comprehension.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, conditionals, and an output schema, the description covers caps, index-release gating, intersection semantics, and result-quality caveats well. It omits pagination behavior beyond the 20-item cap and any sibling routing, which are the remaining gaps.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by adding non-obvious semantics: 'Explicit name never embeds', 'country, destination and near intersect and never widen', and that distance is geographic meters rather than walking time. These are cross-parameter interactions the property descriptions do not state.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search published places by name or traveler intent', which distinguishes name lookup from intent retrieval. It does not name any sibling (e.g., search_destinations or the list_* family) to clarify boundaries, so an agent must infer that place-level listing tools exist elsewhere.

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?

It gives actionable conditions: 'For faster searches, pass a known country or destination code' and 'Unscoped name lookups search all covered countries.' It also explains the mode default and what auto does. However, it offers no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to alternative tools for destination-level or category-level listing.

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