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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the geo-radius semantics and the optional single-need filter, but says nothing about result ordering, result volume, or that the radius and count are bounded (km default, limit max 100). For a low-risk read-only search these gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the scope comes first and the routing condition second, which is exactly the right ordering for a scanning agent.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across five parameters, the description does the minimum viable job: it explains the geo query but omits pagination/limit behavior and any sense of what is returned. Adequate for a simple read, but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the meaning of lat/lng ('a point'), km ('radius'), and need ('optionally for one need'), covering four of five parameters, but the limit parameter and its 1-100 range are never mentioned 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?

States the resource precisely ('community and social services') and its scope ('within a radius of a point, optionally for one need'), so an agent knows this is a proximity-based service lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling find_services, which is the closest and most confusable name.

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?

'Use when the person gives a location rather than a community name' gives a concrete trigger condition that implicitly contrasts with a name-based sibling (find_services). It stops short of naming that alternative or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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