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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the corpus size and that near_lat/near_lng switch to distance sorting within radius_km. It says nothing about default limit behavior or result ordering when no location is given.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool searches, then filter semantics. No filler and every clause carries new 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?

A 15-parameter search tool with no parameter descriptions in the schema and no output schema needs far more coverage than this. The core geographic and category filters are handled well, but a third of the parameters and the entire shape of the response are undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently compose a multi-filter query.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only explains 5 of 15 parameters (place, category, near_lat/near_lng, radius_km). The place example ('Point Pleasant Beach', 'Austin, TX') is genuinely valuable format guidance, but query, amenity, contactable_only, bookable_only, and max_monthly_price are left to name inference.

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+resource ('Search Local Gym Finder') and quantifies the corpus (213003 listings), which tells the agent this is a directory search rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_business or list_places, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

'All filters optional' gives a minimal usage frame, and 'category = a name from list_categories' implies a useful chaining workflow. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_business (single lookups) or list_places, nor on how to combine filters.

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