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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are ranked 'nearest and best-confirmed first' and coverage is limited to Australia, which explains the closed-world hint. It stops short of disclosing result volume, the limit cap, or default radius behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource list, anchor, geography and ordering all appear before anything optional. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs restructuring.

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 six parameters, 17% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent can supply lat/lon correctly but cannot know what exclude_chains does, how limit interacts with the ranking, or that the default radius is 1500 m without reading the raw schema.

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 only 17% — just radius_m carries a description — so the description must compensate for lat, lon, limit, types and exclude_chains. It recovers part of that by enumerating the four place types that map to the `types` enum and by anchoring lat/lon, but `limit` and especially `exclude_chains` (a non-obvious boolean with no default stated anywhere) are left unexplained.

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 names a concrete resource ('Cafés, restaurants, pubs and bars'), a concrete anchor ('near a latitude/longitude'), a geographic scope ('in Australia') and a result ordering. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as find_places_halfway.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'near a latitude/longitude'; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus find_places_halfway or find_suburb, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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