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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: answers are grounded in a verified directory, the tool never substitutes a different city, it reports lack of coverage rather than guessing, it does not book/charge/collect personal details, and the returned attribution must be displayed. These are concrete behavioral and compliance traits the agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with concrete examples and then layers scope, grounding, and compliance constraints. Despite its length, each sentence carries useful selection or invocation 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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return shape: a short concierge answer plus structured data for named places. It also covers attribution requirements and safety constraints, making it complete enough for correct 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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that questions should be in the traveller's own words and gives an example of the `near` area, but it does not add substantial semantic detail beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: ask a natural-language travel question and receive a short concierge answer grounded in NUM's verified directory, including structured place data. It also clarifies scope boundaries (answers about the asked place, never substitutes another city) that make it distinguishable from sibling lookup tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for traveller-style questions such as where to eat or which beach to visit, and it explicitly excludes bookings, charges, and personal details. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_places or place_details, so the when-to-use guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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