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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the data source (OpenStreetMap), result ordering ('Nearest first'), and which attributes come back (address, opening hours, website, phone), which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in a single dense sentence, with examples inline. The trailing attribution ('Data © OpenStreetMap contributors') is licensing boilerplate rather than agent-relevant guidance, costing a small amount of space.

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, the description usefully tells the agent what fields to expect back and how results are ordered. Defaults, limits and accepted input forms are handled by the schema, so nothing essential is missing for a 5-parameter read-only search.

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 all five parameters and their defaults/limits are already documented. The description's restatement of q's flexibility (name/kind/cuisine) largely duplicates the schema, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 (Find) and resource (businesses and landmarks near a place), plus the underlying corpus (14.9 million OpenStreetMap entries). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_directions, get_location, and search_mappit 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?

The description implies when to reach for this tool (proximity search against a POI directory) and shows three query modes (name, kind, cuisine), but it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it — e.g. versus get_directions for routes or get_location for a single place. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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