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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape per entry (id, mapUrl, one-line definition) and the neutral-naming convention, which annotations do not convey. Pagination or count are not discussed, but with a fully enumerated preset catalog that is a minor gap.

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 middle of the description is a long run-on enumeration of ~20 preset examples that largely duplicates what the output schema already delivers. The genuinely useful guidance — the id/mapUrl/definition fields and the 'use names as given' rule — sits at the end rather than being front-loaded, and the opening sentence starts with content rather than with the action.

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 an output schema present, zero parameters and full annotations, the description only needs to frame what the catalog is and how to use it — both are covered, including downstream tool references and naming conventions. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly adds no parameter talk and instead spends its words on output semantics.

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 makes clear these are ready-made, pre-built custom criteria derived from OpenStreetMap places, and that each carries an id, mapUrl and one-line definition — so an agent knows what the tool returns. It also names the sibling consumers (evaluate_custom_criterion, find_areas(custom=[...])). It does not lead with an explicit verb like 'Lists all available presets', so the listing action is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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 ties the output to concrete downstream calls — the id feeds evaluate_custom_criterion and find_areas(custom=[...]) — which tells the agent when this tool is the entry point. It also gives a usage constraint on how to surface the names (no brand names or value words like 'good'/'cheap'). There is no explicit when-not or a statement that this is the discovery step to run before the two consumer tools.

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