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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds dataset scope (curated Fulham only) and measurement units (metres), which is useful, but says nothing about result ordering, radius-overflow behavior, or what happens when nothing is found.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming resource, coordinate system and unit – no filler. It is efficient, though at the cost of the guidance and parameter context noted above rather than as a deliberate compression of richer content.

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 read-only geo lookup with full safety annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present: what is searched, where, and in what unit results are measured. Missing are result ordering/shape and any guidance on choosing radius or category, which an agent would want before iterating.

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?

Coverage is 40%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it establishes WGS84 for the coordinates and metres for radius, aligning with the schema's units. It never mentions the category filter, the limit cap, or defaults, leaving the enum parameter documented only by its type.

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 operation: returns nearest curated Fulham places to a WGS84 coordinate, with distance in metres. The proximity framing implicitly distinguishes it from search_places and list_places, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'nearest ... to a WGS84 coordinate' – an agent can infer this is the proximity query. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or steering toward search_places/list_places when proximity is not the goal.

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