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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing search radii (400 m, 800 m), the cap of three bus stops, nearest-first ordering, that meters and walking minutes accompany each entry, and that a sources field reports dataset provenance and last-checked time. For a tool with no output schema, this is exactly the behavioral context needed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a single dense enumeration of returns that avoids repetition. It is one long run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scanability, but nearly every clause carries distinct 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?

Without an output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload (per-category radii, ordering, provenance). The one gap is behavior for coordinates outside Milwaukee coverage or when a category has no results — the agent cannot tell whether it gets an empty list or an error.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with range bounds and example values, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the implicit constraint that the coordinate should be a point in Milwaukee; it adds no format or validation 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?

States a concrete resource and scope: car-free access to a Milwaukee point, with bus stops, bike docks, EV chargers, parking meters, and public structures enumerated. No sibling (places_near, get_place, search_places) overlaps this multimodal-access resource, so an agent can route to it from the name and first clause alone.

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 phrase 'without a car' and 'where to park or charge' implies when the tool fits, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the nearby-places case (places_near, get_place). Usage must be inferred from the returned-data list.

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