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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only and idempotent nature is covered. The description adds the ODbL attribution requirement, which is a critical behavioral constraint for display and not covered by annotations. It also mentions the data source (OpenStreetMap), adding useful context 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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core function (lists nearby services) and then stating the attribution requirement. It is efficiently structured and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, data source, and legal attribution. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but those are not critical for basic understanding. The attribution requirement is a notable addition that fills a gap beyond the annotations.

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 67% (id and types have descriptions; radius_km lacks a description but has constraints). The description lists example types (schools, hospitals, transport, commerce) that overlap with the schema's examples, providing no additional meaning. For radius_km, neither the description nor the schema explains it beyond numeric constraints, but the baseline of 3 applies since schema covers most parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists nearby services (schools, hospitals, transport, commerce) for a given development, sourced from OpenStreetMap. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_ratings or get_project_timeline, which focus on other aspects. The examples of service types further clarify the scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent would infer to use it when needing nearby amenities for a project. However, no explicit guidance on context or alternatives is provided, so it remains at the implied level.

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