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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: Gymmy gyms are bookable, while OpenStreetMap gyms are not bookable and expose a claim link.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads what the tool finds and where, then adds result-type behavior and follow-up tools.

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 still explains the key distinction in results: bookable Gymmy gyms vs non-bookable OpenStreetMap listings with a claim link. It also names the natural follow-up tools, so an agent has enough context to use the tool correctly.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that search can be by point or geocoded name/city/postcode, but adds little syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: find gyms and studios, with concrete activity categories and geographic scope (France and Europe). It also distinguishes two result types, Gymmy bookable gyms vs OpenStreetMap listings, so an agent can tell what it will get without opening another schema.

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 explains search modes (near a point or by name/city/postcode) and routes follow-up actions to get_gym, get_schedule, get_prices, and start_trial. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings like my_gyms, but the usage context is otherwise strong.

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