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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as result limits or ordering, but it also does not contradict the annotations. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds a necessary workflow pointer, making every word earn 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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow purpose and next step. Minor gaps remain around default country filtering and radius meaning, but these are partially inferable from the schema defaults and are not critical for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, with query and near's lat/lng described but countryCode and radiusMeters left undocumented. The description does not compensate for these gaps by explaining defaults, radius meaning, or country filtering behavior. An agent would need to infer the semantics of countryCode='gh' and radiusMeters without additional guidance.

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 specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('pickup or destination places'). It also references the downstream workflow step, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_place and plan_trip.

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 explicitly says to use resolve_place on the selected result before planning a trip, giving clear sequential context. It does not enumerate when to avoid this tool, but the workflow guidance is meaningful and sufficient for basic routing.

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