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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: ranking is widget-consistent, and the tool behaves differently without a point. It does not describe output format, but that is a minor gap given the read-only annotations.

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 filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently introduces the alternative mode. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema and zero required parameters, the description provides enough to understand the two invocation patterns. The absence of an output schema is not fully compensated, but 'rank locations' implies the result shape, leaving only minor ambiguity about edge-case calls with no parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond individual parameter docs by revealing the relationship between lat/lng and q/tag: a point drives distance ranking, while q/tag can substitute for it to answer data questions.

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 uses a specific verb ('rank') with a clear resource ('locations') and criterion ('by distance from a point'). It also adds a second mode with 'tag or q without a point', which distinguishes this from a plain listing tool like list_locations.

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?

It clearly states when the primary ranking behavior applies (when a point is provided) and when the alternative data-question mode applies (tag/q without a point). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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