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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: only venues with public clips are listed, and distances are returned in both km and miles. It does not discuss pagination or result ordering beyond the 'near' sort.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, then the filtering mechanics. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description summarizes them helpfully. With the scope constraint, both filter modes, and the coordinate hint covered, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a three-parameter read-only tool.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that `query` matches name, city or state, and by giving the practical instruction to pass approximate lat/long for a place name like 'San Diego' — that geographic hint is genuinely useful and not in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the bike parks (venues) that have public Shreddy clips') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. The scoping phrase 'that have public Shreddy clips' distinguishes it from get_venue (single venue) and search_clips (clip-level search).

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?

Explicitly names the trigger phrase 'what parks do you have' and the secondary use 'to learn valid venue names', which is real routing guidance. It also explains the two filter modes. It stops short of naming get_venue as the follow-up for detail on a single park, so there is no explicit when-not.

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