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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the ranking order ('by listing tier then distance') and the empty-array return for no matches. These are operational details an agent needs, and they are not present in the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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, front-loaded with the core action and ranking, followed by usage context. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema data, and no unnecessary detail. The critical usage constraint (radius_miles required) is included without padding.

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?

Combined with the schema (which covers all parameters, defaults, limits, and enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps: ordering, empty-array behavior, and contextual radius guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 100%, meaning every parameter already has a meaningful schema description. The tool description repeats the radius guidance ('5mi single venue, 25mi metro, 50mi regional') which is already present in the schema for radius_miles. It does not add anything new about parameter meaning or relationships. With full schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a precise resource ('valet operators near a coordinate'), and adds distinguishing details: 'ranked by listing tier then distance'. This clearly separates it from siblings like valet_find_nearest_operators (which likely finds a single nearest) and valet_find_operators_in_city (which uses city rather than coordinates).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have a coordinate and an event-context radius (5mi single venue, 25mi metro, 50mi regional)'. It also specifies the required radius_miles parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over the city-based sibling. Missing an explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, so not a 5.

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