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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: sources are read live at query time (which explains and reinforces idempotentHint=false), the returned field set (`phone`, `website`, `lat`/`lng`, `detail`), and a hard input requirement that place types need `near`.

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?

Purpose and the `near` requirement are front-loaded, and most sentences carry operational instructions that affect call correctness. It is on the long side, with the last two sentences (don't re-search, state absent fields) restating the same 'use what you got' idea twice, and the all-caps emphasis is heavier than needed.

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 an open-world search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the important gaps: live-vs-cached semantics, required location for place types, and how to report results. It omits result limits/pagination behavior and any relationship to the similarly-named `discover_sources` sibling.

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 schema already documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds real cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express — that place-type values require `near`, and that lat/lng should be used instead of guessing a place name for 'near me'. The `type` value list largely duplicates the schema description.

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 — 'look up real, current information from open public sources' — plus an explicit enumeration of the catalogues it covers (jobs, hospitals, banks, schools, etc.), which is far beyond a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `discover_sources`, whose name is close enough that an agent could confuse the two.

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 concrete usage constraints: place types REQUIRE `near`, results must be attributed with sources and timing, and details already returned should not be re-searched. It lacks any explicit routing to an alternative tool (e.g. `discover_sources` or `find_tools`), so the agent gets context but not exclusions.

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