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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds the workflow constraint that results must be resolved before planning, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or how 'near'/radius influence results. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the follow-up instruction. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both the purpose and the required next step. Missing only edge-case detail (e.g., how to handle no results, whether countryCode defaults constrain scope), which is minor for a search tool.

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 75% and the schema already documents query, near coordinates, countryCode values and lat/lng bounds. The description only hints that results can be pickup or destination places and adds no syntax or format detail for any parameter. Baseline 3 is correct where structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search for pickup or destination places.' That is clear and distinguishes it from routing/planning siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with other search-like tools, but the domain is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit downstream guidance: 'Use resolve_place on the selected result before planning a trip.' This routes the agent through the right pipeline step. It does not state when this tool should NOT be used versus siblings like plan_trip or compare_rides, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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