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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations by disclosing non-obvious behavior: category relaxation with a never-dropped first category, the dropped_categories field, the 0–10 area-relative score scale, 'unmeasured not bad' semantics, and the 100-candidate ranking window. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one line and every subsequent sentence adds usable detail. The closing 'relative to other places in the same country' slightly tensions with the earlier 'relative to the area,' a small redundancy that costs a point.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, yet it still sketches them (quotable reasons, citable link, freshness). Combined with edge-case coverage (relaxation, dropped_categories, score scale), an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 50%, so the description carries real weight: it explains that categories must ALL match, that order is by importance, and that area_id vs lat/lon+radius are mutually exclusive location modes. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both description and schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('Find places for an intent near a location') and explicitly frames itself as 'The core call,' which cleanly separates it from the single-place sibling get_place. An agent can identify what this does 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 routes the agent to the correct input sources — category ids 'from list_categories' and location 'either an area_id from list_areas or coordinates with a radius' — naming siblings explicitly. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this versus get_place or list_* for browsing, so exclusions are absent.

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