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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: geographic coverage limits, multiple-match ambiguity handling, the `point` field as the pass-through value for planning tools, and a grounding rule against supplying addresses or hours from memory. The unofficial/not-affiliated disclaimer is also disclosed.

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 purpose and trigger condition are front-loaded and the sentences are mostly load-bearing. The Args block restates what the schema already declares structurally and the closing grounding/disclaimer sentence is somewhat tacked on, but neither is wasteful enough to hurt scanning.

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, the description does the necessary work of describing the return shape at a high level — multiple candidate results, a `point` value to feed into planners, and the need to confirm which match is intended. It leaves the remaining result fields (name, formatted address, confidence) unspecified, which an agent must discover at call time.

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 carries the full burden, and it does explain both parameters: query is "what the rider said" with two concrete examples, and limit is bounded to 1–5, tighter than the schema's default of 5. It stops short of saying what limit controls in practice (candidate matches for disambiguation) or what happens at the boundaries.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Find where a street address, hotel, attraction or other place is") and bounds it geographically to DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia. It also implicitly separates itself from station lookups by noting the query is for places that are "not plainly a station," which distances it from siblings like get_station_info and find_stops_near.

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 states explicitly when to call ("whenever a rider names a place that isn't plainly a station, before planning a trip from or to it") and names the downstream tools that consume the output (plan_trip, plan_connection, find_stops_near). It also prescribes disambiguation behavior — verify the result matches and ask the rider when several fit — which no sibling tool covers.

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