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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: results are geographically biased to trip destinations and ranked nearest-first, and results expose a providerId usable for chaining. It does not mention result limits or freshness, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what is found and how results are scoped, the second covers the follow-up action. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter, read-only search with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, geographic bias, ranking, and how to consume the result via providerId. Return-format details are legitimately left to the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that tripId drives the geographic scoping and ranking ('around the trip's destinations and nearest the trip first') rather than being an arbitrary filter. It also frames 'query' as a place-name search, complementing the schema's example.

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 and resource ('Finds real places') and enumerates concrete entity types (restaurants, sights, hotels, addresses), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the scoping/ranking behavior ('around the trip's destinations and nearest the trip first'), which distinguishes it from any of the write-oriented siblings.

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 second sentence gives a clear downstream context: use a result's providerId to add an activity or pin to the wishlist, which implicitly tells the agent this search is the lookup step preceding add_activity/add_to_wishlist. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating exclusions (e.g., when not to search vs. browse the wishlist), so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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