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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output ordering ('most famous first, rank order'), the inclusion of distance_km, and radius limits (default 50, max 500). This provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 concise with four short sentences, each adding essential information: core function, radius defaults, geocoding prerequisite, and filtering example. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, input format, ordering, distance metric, and filtering. It lacks a full return-field list, but the mention of distance_km and rank order gives sufficient expectation for a list 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 covers kind, limit, and radius_km with descriptions, but latitude/longitude only have bounds. The description compensates by explaining WGS84 coordinates and instructing to geocode first, and clarifies radius defaults. It also illustrates kind usage with the waterfall example, adding value over the schema's cryptic note.

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 clearly states the tool lists notable places within a radius, ordered by fame, with distance_km. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_place (single place) or search_places (likely query-based).

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 explicitly says to geocode the location yourself, providing a prerequisite. It also gives a concrete example 'waterfalls near Zurich' and explains that filtering by kind answers such queries. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context implies it's for coordinate-based discovery.

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