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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The one genuinely additive disclosure is that supplying memory re-ranks results to favor fit — a behavioral trait not visible in annotations or schema. Return shape, result count per call and the meaning of 'synthetic groups' remain undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before behavior and the parameter hint. The middle 'Read-only' sentence is filler given the annotation, and 'your person's' phrasing is slightly opaque, but nothing else wastes space.

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 a fully documented 5-parameter schema and clear annotations, the definition is serviceable but leaves gaps: no output schema exists, yet the description never indicates what a result looks like beyond the schema's 'page of ten places', and the unusual term 'synthetic groups' is never explained.

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; the description earns an extra point by explaining the *effect* of memory (personalized ordering) rather than merely restating its type, which the schema cannot convey. Interest and town are only echoed, and page/question get no mention in the 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 concrete verb and two concrete resources ('public places and synthetic groups') scoped by interest and town, which is far more specific than a generic search. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. places_verdicts, capabilities_search, fathom_space), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Pass your person's memory link as memory to put what fits them first' gives clear guidance on one optional parameter's effect. There is no statement of when this tool is the right choice versus the many other discovery-oriented siblings, and no exclusion of cases where it should not be used.

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