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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds that matches come from a known gazetteer ('places halfwhere knows') and return coordinates, which is real context. It says nothing about no-match behavior, multiple matches, or ordering — matters for a disambiguation tool.

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 tight sentences, purpose first then usage, with no filler. The only cost is the awkward phrase 'places halfwhere knows' (and apparent typo), which slightly obscures the gazetteer concept.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of return-shape information and it gives just 'with coordinates'. For a disambiguation tool, the absence of any statement about ambiguous or empty results leaves a meaningful gap, though the tool is simple enough that nothing else is essential.

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%: 'query' is documented, 'limit' is not. The description restates the accepted query forms (suburb, town or postcode), reinforcing that postcodes are valid inputs, but says nothing about what 'limit' bounds, its default, or what happens when several matches are truncated.

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?

Specific verb (match) plus resource (suburb, town or postcode) with a concrete output promise ('with coordinates'). It is distinguishable from find_places_near and find_places_halfway by being a gazetteer lookup rather than a proximity search, though it never names the siblings to make that contrast explicit.

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?

Gives one clear trigger — disambiguating names that exist in several cities — but no exclusions, no prerequisite step, and no routing advice toward or away from the sibling lookup/near tools. A caller must infer that this is the resolver to run before a proximity query.

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