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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are capped at up to 3, and if nothing matches it falls back to 'nearest covered towns', plus a geographic boundary of Washington — all of which shape how an agent should interpret a thin result set.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the trigger and scope come first, then the return behavior and exclusions. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant constraint (Washington-only) is placed where it will be read.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers trigger, scope, result cap, and fallback behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate the shape of a 'story' record or whether a fallback to nearby towns is distinguishable from an exact match, a minor remaining 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'place' parameter already documents the accepted town/city/landmark/highway forms with identical examples. The description restates the same meaning rather than adding syntax, disambiguation, or normalization rules beyond 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 ('what stories Sal has near a town, city, landmark, or highway') and narrows scope to Washington, with concrete example inputs. It does not name the closer siblings (story, stretch_stories), so an agent must infer the distinction from the 'near a place' framing rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when someone asks...') and closes with clear exclusions ('Not for navigation, bookings, or places outside Washington'). It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use for a single known story vs. a route-based request, leaving that alternative unstated.

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