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

The annotations only declare safety properties (readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent); they say nothing about cost. The description adds a genuinely valuable disclosure that isn't in any structured field: this call consumes a small amount of Growth Credits. It also reassures that nothing is mutated until add_place, which pairs well with readOnlyHint. The gap is that it doesn't warn that repeated calls may incur repeated cost, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what it returns, what it does not do, and what it costs. Front-loaded with the purpose and no filler whatsoever.

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 zero-parameter, read-only suggestion tool this covers purpose, side effects, cost, and the follow-up action. The one thing missing is a hint about the shape or volume of the returned suggestions, which the absent output schema would otherwise have covered, but an agent can still call it confidently.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids wasting words on inputs.

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 ('Suggest towns and districts') plus the source of the suggestion ('from what GrowthDept knows about it'). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools 'places' (list) and 'add_place' (commit), which are the two tools an agent might confuse it with.

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 tells the agent exactly where this fits in the workflow: generate suggestions here, then call add_place to actually persist anything. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. when the business already has places confirmed), but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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