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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: dataset scale (~1,900), provenance and license (map.gtadb.org, CC BY 4.0), and what 'matched' means (community-confirmed against real addresses). It stops short of describing result shape or ordering.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the dataset identity and scale are front-loaded, then search modes, then the optional radius constraint. Every clause carries information an agent would not get from structured fields.

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?

With six optional params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches over and how to constrain it. The one remaining gap is that with no output schema an agent still doesn't know what fields a returned landmark contains.

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 schema already documents limit, query, near_x/near_y pairing, radius and confirmed_only — the near/radius pairing described in the text is already in the schema. The description's only real addition is example query strings like 'Ocean Drive' and 'airport', a modest increment over the schema baseline.

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 — search ~1,900 GTA VI locations matched to real Miami/Florida places — with concrete example queries. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_locations by emphasizing the in-game↔real-world mapping, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Gives clear usage modes (search by in-game area or real place; optionally radius-limited) with examples, which is more than implied usage. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not address the obvious overlap with the sibling find_nearby for the radius workflow.

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