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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: defaults for drop-ins and today's classes, US-only location scope, and the type of data returned (drop-in policy, visitor fee, matching class times). It does not detail edge cases or formatting, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and location scope are front-loaded, followed by defaults and return content. Every sentence adds useful 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes what the tool returns. It covers the main intent, location inputs, default behavior, and key output fields. It could be more complete by explicitly routing users to get_gym for individual gym details or noting result ordering, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 adds context about default filtering and returned fields, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for q, day, kinds, limit, today, and drop_ins.

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 action ('Find BJJ gyms') and a resource, with a defined scope ('near a US city, neighborhood, or ZIP'). It also clarifies the default filters and return content, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_gym and list_cities.

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 description implies the use case: search for BJJ gyms by location, matching the OpenMapp map defaults. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as get_gym for individual gym details, or map_url/list_cities for other map-related actions.

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