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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds little beyond that — it says 'Find' which aligns with read-only, but does not disclose additional behaviors like default filters or result sorting. It does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope in the first sentence. The second sentence adds practical context. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple nature of a geo-search tool and the rich schema (all parameters documented) plus annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not have an output schema, but the name and description make the return type (missions) clear. Slight ambiguity remains about result ordering or default status, but these are minor and not required for basic invocation.

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%, with every parameter (latitude, longitude, radiusKm, status) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is correct.

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 opens with 'Find property verification missions within a geographic radius,' using a specific verb ('find'), a clear resource ('property verification missions'), and a distinguishing scope (geographic radius). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_missions or search_missions, which are broader or text-based.

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?

The description gives explicit use cases: 'useful for scouts looking for missions near their location or for finding missions in a specific area.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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