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

Adds behavior beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations: 'Needs an API key. Costs no credits and starts nothing.' Auth requirement, cost model, and side-effect profile are exactly the extra context annotations can't carry, and all three are disclosed.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct payload: what it returns, when to use it, and operational constraints. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns itself, and it does: searched fraction, last-search time, and count of saved places. Combined with the usage and cost context, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and already documents geo forms, keyword semantics (per-term coverage), and lang. The description restates 'area' and 'term' at a high level without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: reporting how much of an area has been searched for a term, when, and how many saved places exist. It's clearly a read/inspection operation, distinguishing it from the collection/search siblings, but it never names a specific alternative tool.

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 an explicit decision context: 'Use it to decide whether to collect again or just read the saved places.' That tells the agent when the tool is useful, though it stops short of naming the concrete alternative tools or stating hard exclusions.

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