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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data source (OpenStreetMap) and the exact return shape ([lat, lng] plus isoA2 for countries). It omits result-count/limit behavior and whether multiple matches are ranked, which is a minor gap.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the returned artifact and the OpenStreetMap provenance, closing with the routing directive. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 output schema and no annotation detail on returns, the description correctly takes on the job of describing what is returned (coordinates, isoA2), which is the key missing piece. It is slightly incomplete on multi-result/limit behavior, but for a two-parameter lookup tool it is essentially sufficient.

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 carry parameter meaning. It implies that 'query' accepts place names for cities, towns, landmarks and countries, which is useful, but it never explains the 'limit' parameter, defaults, or the maximum result count even though the schema allows up to 10.

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 and resource ('find places') and precisely enumerates what comes back: coordinates for cities, towns and landmarks, plus drawable countries with isoA2. No sibling tool in the list performs geocoding, so the scope is unambiguous and the agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use it instead of guessing coordinates,' which tells the agent the triggering condition (a need for real lat/lng). It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but no sibling overlaps this capability, so the guidance is adequate.

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