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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all - no return shape, no result limits, no note that the 'this weekend'/'today' phrasing in its own examples has no corresponding temporal parameter in the schema, which is a meaningful omission.

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?

A single short purpose sentence followed by illustrative queries - front-loaded and easy to scan. The examples are slightly repetitive but serve as usage signaling rather than filler.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description leaves the caller without unit, limit, or result-shape guidance. Its temporal examples also raise expectations the parameter list cannot satisfy.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'near a location' loosely maps to lat/lng and 'nearby' hints at radius_miles, but limit and radius_miles units/defaults/bounds are undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find open houses') plus the spatial scope ('near a location'), which cleanly separates it from find_nearby_shops and whats_happening. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Three example utterances imply the intended context (weekend/today/nearby lookups), which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like whats_happening or find_nearby_shops, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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