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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: distances are straight-line rather than routed, and results may include candidate_limited flags and per-layer errors, warning the agent about partial output.

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 scope statement comes first, followed by the layer-key prerequisite and then caveats, so the most important information is front-loaded. Sentences are terse and each carries content, though the fragment style ('Preserve candidate_limited flags and per-layer errors') is slightly clipped.

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 structure need not be described, and the key caveats about straight-line distance and error flags are covered. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving limit and run_id unexplained is a real gap an agent must guess around.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies radius_km's 25 km ceiling and that layer values come from the dataset catalog, but says nothing about limit, run_id, or the meaning of latitude/longitude ranges — run_id in particular is entirely opaque.

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?

"Find nearby transport/logistics features within radius_km" gives a specific verb and resource, and the domain (logistics) distinguishes it from siblings like get_environment_context or get_site_context. It never explicitly names a sibling or the boundary between them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the radius-based 'find nearby features' framing and by the pointer that layer keys live in the dataset catalog under logistics, which tells the agent how to prepare a call. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_site_context, get_environment_context, or get_parcel_terrain, and no exclusions.

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