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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds genuine behavior beyond them by disclosing the data source (OpenStreetMap, no search-volume lookup) and the default exclusion of towns that already have a page unless excludeExisting is false. It stops short of describing result limits, pagination or output shape.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the sourcing caveat and the exclusion rule. Every sentence contributes; it could be slightly tighter but there is no filler.

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 eight parameters, 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should do more heavy lifting than it does. It covers the geographic inputs and the exclusion rule adequately, but leaves the required site identifier and the meaning of baseKeyword unexplained, which an agent needs in order to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description carries most of the param burden and partially delivers: it explains the city/coordinates alternative, the radius concept, and excludeExisting's default behavior. It is silent on the required 'site' parameter, 'state', and especially 'baseKeyword', so three of eight parameters remain 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: towns near a city or coordinates within a radius, sourced from OpenStreetMap place data. It also distinguishes itself from keyword-research siblings by explicitly stating 'no search-volume lookup' and frames the output as 'candidate targets for location pages,' so the intent is clear even without naming an alternative tool directly.

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 phrase 'candidate targets for location pages' implies the workflow it feeds, and the explainer about existing pages being excluded sets a real precondition. However, it never states when to prefer this over competitors like detect_business_location or generate_location_page_drafts, so usage is inferred rather than guided.

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