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

The annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds useful context: results are enriched with category hierarchy, addresses, distance and bearing, nearest-first sorting is used when an origin exists, radius excludes out-of-range results, and each call costs 20 points.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds sorting/filtering behavior plus point cost. It is concise overall, though the English-Korean pairing repeats some information, and the Korean line adds details such as nearest-first sorting and radius exclusion.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description explains what is searched, what each result contains, when distance/bearing are computed, how sorting works, and how radius filters results. Pagination details are left to the schema, which is reasonable given full schema coverage.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description reinforces the origin-dependent distance sorting and radius filtering but does not significantly add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search places by name and enrich each result with category, address, distance and bearing. It is clearer than a generic place search, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as geo_address_search or google_maps_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?

Use is implied by the search-by-name framing and the conditional note that distance/bearing are computed only when an origin exists. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of geo_address_search, geo_address_autocomplete, or google_maps_search.

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