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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does convey the main behavior: it lists cities with coverage counts and supports filtering by name or state. However, it does not specify defaults, ordering, or response shape, so an agent still has some uncertainty about exact behavior.

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 front-load the resource, the data returned, and the intended use case, with filtering hinted at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the resource, data, purpose, and filter options. Only the exact return shape and default behavior are left implicit, and those are minor given the simplicity.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, restating the q and state filters without new format or interaction details.

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 (list) on a specific resource (US cities covered by OpenMapp) and enumerates the data returned (gym counts, drop-in and open-mat availability). It also names the sibling find_gyms, making it distinguishable from the other tools.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as a pre-flight check: 'Use this to check coverage before find_gyms.' This gives an agent a clear decision rule for when to invoke it and which alternative to reach for instead.

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