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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results come from a live, community-mapped external directory, implying data freshness and coverage gaps the agent should caveat. It doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the invocation trigger front-loaded before the implementation detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the definition supplies the trigger, the data provenance and the safety profile via annotations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single 'city' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a spatial nuance ('near the city') beyond the schema's 'City to search in', which does not materially extend parameter meaning.

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+resource (find free Wi-Fi hotspots) plus the data sources it queries (Nominatim geocoding + Overpass via OpenStreetMap), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from the connectivity/plan-oriented siblings at a glance.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks where to find free Wi-Fi in a city.' It gives clear context for invocation but names no exclusions or alternative tools for adjacent asks (e.g. Wi-Fi security vs. hotspot lookup).

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