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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: coverage patterns (strongest in West/Southwest), the scorer used, maximum return count (10), and attribution requirements. These go beyond annotations and paint a comprehensive picture of the tool's behavior.

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 a single paragraph but packs multiple relevant details (coverage, scorer, max results, usage terms). The first sentence immediately provides geographical context, which is helpful but could be more directly about the operation. Overall, it is reasonably concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return format. It only states 'returns at most 10 stops' without describing stop fields or structure. Given the tool's search nature and lack of output schema, this omission leaves the agent partially uninformed. Annotations cover safety, but completeness suffers.

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 50%: only the 'state' parameter has a description. The description does not elaborate on either parameter, missing an opportunity to explain what 'query' expects (e.g., stop name, city). With moderate coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb 'search' combined with resource 'stops' clearly indicates the tool's function. The description further specifies coverage (United States) and the tool's distinctiveness from sibling tools which focus on drives. This provides a clear, specific purpose.

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 states usage is for 'individual-assistant use with attribution' and mentions licensing for bulk extraction, providing some context on appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_drive or plan_drive, leaving the agent to infer that this is for searching stops, not managing drives.

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