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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only example queries and does not explain proximity behavior, category handling, default radius, result limits, or anything else beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The example queries are useful and not excessive, though they take space that could have documented parameters.

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 five parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It establishes what the tool does but leaves latitude/longitude handling, radius units, category enum meaning, and result limits completely undocumented.

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 0% across five parameters, and the description does not explain lat/lng, limit, category, or radius_miles. The examples hint at category use, but they do not map to the actual enum values or define any parameter behavior.

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 clear verb and resource: "Find shops near a location." It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as find_open_houses or whats_live_nearby.

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 example queries ("coffee shops near me", "where can I get lunch nearby?", "is there a bookstore around here?") make the intended use context clear. However, there are no explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to the sibling tools.

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