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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read against a closed-world directory, so the description only needs to add result behavior. It does so by stating the midpoint calculation, venue types, directory source, and cap of 10 results with links. It still omits geocoding/error behavior and the exact response shape, keeping it below the top score.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and then supply one useful example; no sentence is filler. The inline example earns its place by showing accepted postcode/address forms.

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 four-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the computation, input scope, venue filter, and return limit. It leaves output field details to inference, but the core contract an agent needs to invoke it is present.

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%, with address_a, address_b, address_c, and kind documented inline. The description reinforces the address/postcode format with an example and clarifies that address_c makes the input two-or-three locations, but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: computes the halfway point between two or three Amsterdam addresses/postcodes and returns nearby cafes, restaurants, and bars. The Amsterdam scope, directory source, and up-to-10 result limit distinguish it from a generic directory search.

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 purpose and inline example make the meeting-planning use case clear, and 'two or three' signals when address_c applies. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as nearest or directory_search, so guidance stops short of full alternatives.

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