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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('sourced records ... with the tags they share'), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the comparison scope and cardinality come first. 'Sourced records' is slightly opaque wording but costs only a few words.

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 one-parameter, fully described schema with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential result character (records plus shared tags). Only edge behavior for invalid or unknown slugs is left unstated.

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% and already enforces minItems 2, maxItems 4, and uniqueItems, so the description's '2 to 4 ... by slug' restates structured constraints rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete operation and resource: a side-by-side comparison of Fulham places, bounded to 2–4 slugs, returning shared tags. The cardinality and 'side-by-side' framing separate it from get_place without naming the sibling explicitly.

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 comparison intent implies when to use it (multiple places at once rather than one), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_place or nearby_places, and no mention of preconditions such as slugs needing to exist or be distinct.

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