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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful defaults (fallback origin ZIP 95032, 20-mile radius) that the schema does not state for the origin. It says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what 'partial coverage' means when strict is false.

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?

The purpose and the origin constraint are front-loaded in two dense sentences with no redundancy. The trailing vendor attribution line ('Served by Profullstack...') does not help tool selection, though it is only one line.

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 12-parameter, all-optional aggregation search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the hardest part an agent faces: choosing a single origin form and relying on sane defaults. The main remaining gap is that paging through results with limit is never addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not express: the origin inputs are an either/or choice ('one origin (zip, lat+lng, address, or city+state)'), which prevents an agent from mixing conflicting locators. It also reinforces the default radius value used by radius_miles.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'Search Datamart near a place: public library branches, public schools and colleges within a radius, plus government services.' That content scope implicitly separates it from single-namespace siblings like profullstack_libraries_search or profullstack_education_search, but no alternative is named explicitly.

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?

'Give one origin (zip, lat+lng, address, or city+state); default is ZIP 95032 within 20 miles' tells an agent how to invoke it and what happens with no input, which is real usage guidance. It never states when to prefer this aggregate search over the narrower per-namespace siblings, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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