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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations don't: nearest-first result ordering and the important caveat that unrated haunts (review_count 0) have null ratings and are dropped when min_stars or min_scare is set. It doesn't discuss pagination or result caps beyond limit.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ordering, then prerequisites, then caveats, then sibling routing, in four dense sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For an 8-parameter geo-search tool the description covers the required lat/lng prerequisite, the geocoding gap it cannot fill, the filter semantics including the null-rating edge case, and sibling routing — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the null-rating/unrated interaction with min_stars and min_scare, and the filter axes (category, season, minimum visitor ratings). It does not explain the distinction between min_scare and min_stars beyond the schema's own wording.

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 set ('Find haunted houses, haunt farms, ghost tours, horror escape rooms and haunted places') scoped by radius around lat/lng, and adds the ordering guarantee 'nearest first'. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming when to use scaremap_find_haunts_in_city and scaremap_get_haunt instead.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user gives a place, address or coordinates and wants scary things to do nearby'), a prerequisite ('Geocode a place name to lat/lng first'), and an exclusion ('this tool does not search by name'). It also routes to two named alternative tools with the conditions that select them.

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