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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering ('nearest first'), the output content (cheapest drink per category, distance), and the radius/geospatial nature. It does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or caveats about data availability, which are notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage trigger follows immediately. Every word 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 geospatial query tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (venues, cheapest drink per category, distance) and when to use it. It does not cover pagination or output format details, but given the simplicity and the fact that limit is documented in the schema, this is fairly complete. A brief note on result count limits would improve it.

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 50%, with limit and radius_km documented. The description adds geospatial context (radius of a latitude/longitude) that clarifies the coordinate parameters implicitly, but it does not add specific format or syntax details beyond the schema. It helps a bit but does not fully compensate for the missing descriptions of latitude and longitude.

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 what the tool does: returns priced venues within a radius of a latitude/longitude, sorted nearest first, with cheapest drink per category and distance. It is specific about the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like venue_prices or price_index, leaving some ambiguity about when to pick it over them.

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 description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user has shared a location or named a place you can geocode yourself.' This is clear context for when to call it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so the guidance is one-sided but still useful.

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