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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes well beyond them: ~5 km radius cap, quality/distance blend ranking, the conditional presence of `distance_m`, the no-fabrication guarantee, and a hard requirement to display the `attribution` string. These are behavioral traits the agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by ranking, parameter modes, return fields, and constraints in a logical order. It is denser than strictly necessary (the 4.8★ snack-bar aside), but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return payload (name, category, area, rating, review count, phone, address, hours, conditional distance_m) and adds the mandatory attribution display. An agent has everything it needs to call and present results 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the ~5 km limiting radius for coordinate input, the blend of quality and distance, and the fact that no distance is returned for neighbourhood input. It doesn't expand on query/category/limit syntax, but those are fully covered in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find real, currently-operating places in a destination') and enumerates the categories covered, so the agent knows exactly what domain this search spans. It is cleanly separable from detail-oriented siblings like place_details or get_reviews because it describes discovery/ranking rather than lookup.

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?

Explains the two operating modes of `near` (coordinate for distance-ranked, neighbourhood name for area-only filtering) and what ranking to expect in each, which is effectively usage guidance. It does not name a sibling as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.