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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: results are curated, bucketed, and ordered nearest-first, plus the cost (10¢ per call). However, it does not disclose result-count limits, pagination, or data freshness/staleness. The price disclosure is a genuinely useful addition beyond structured fields, but the behavioral picture is not deeply rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with functional purpose and free of filler. The functional content leads, and the pricing note follows as a compact secondary detail. Slightly off-topic for a purpose description, but the cost disclosure is useful for an agent deciding whether to call. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema present, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the essential semantics: content categories, scoping radius, ordering, and grouping. The term 'bucketed' is mildly ambiguous (distance buckets vs category buckets), and gnaf_id remains unexplained, but for a tool of this simplicity the description is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 50% — radius_m is fully documented (range 100–5000, default 1000) in the schema, and the description reinforces its semantic role as the search radius. However, gnaf_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description; its meaning is only inferable from the name. The description adds modest value beyond the schema but does not compensate for the gnaf_id gap.

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 clear purpose: returning curated amenities (supermarkets, green spaces, restaurants/cafes) near a property within a radius. The verb is implicit ('list'/'return') but the specific categories and scope make the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like properties_schools_nearby and properties_transport_nearby by naming its content categories, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 categories (supermarkets, green spaces, restaurants/cafes) implicitly signal when this tool applies versus siblings like properties_schools_nearby or properties_transport_nearby, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no mention of what it does NOT cover. The guidance is implied through category listing, not stated.

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