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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that near_lat/near_lng change the sort to distance-bounded ordering within radius_km, which is not in the annotations. It omits the default result ordering, the default limit of 10 and how to page past it, and how multiple active filters interact — significant gaps for a 15-parameter search.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the corpus scope and the "all filters optional" fact front-loaded before the parameter notes. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ("place = town, city, neighbourhood or state as written") but every clause carries information.

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 15-parameter search with no output schema and no structured parameter descriptions, the definition should say what a result looks like, how pagination works past the default limit of 10, and whether filters AND together. None of that is present, so an agent can form a query but cannot predict or iterate on the response.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain the genuinely ambiguous ones: the place format with concrete examples, the category source, and the lat/lng + radius sorting relationship. However, it says nothing about limit/pagination, the distinction between the free-text "query" and "place", or amenity and max_monthly_price semantics, leaving roughly a dozen parameters name-only.

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 and resource ("Search Gyms NJ (3238 listings)") and even quantifies the corpus, so an agent knows this queries the business directory rather than a single record. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_business or list_places, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

"All filters optional" establishes that an empty call is valid, and "category = a name from list_categories" routes the agent to the correct sibling for enumerating values. Beyond that there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, e.g. no statement of when to prefer this over list_places or get_business, or whether multiple filters combine.

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