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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: nearest-first ordering, arrival times in the result, and the multi-city fan-out that happens when `city` is omitted — a non-obvious cost/scope trait worth disclosing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core behavior (what is found, where, in what order, with what data) is front-loaded ahead of the conditional qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety contract. It covers the city scope rule and basic constraints; only the undocumented `limit` and `radiusMeters` semantics leave a small gap.

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 60%, and the description meaningfully clarifies `city` by explaining that omitting it broadens the search across all overlapping cities rather than erroring. It adds nothing, however, for `limit` or `radiusMeters`, which carry no schema description, so those two remain undocumented.

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 ('Find garbage-truck stops'), plus scope (four named cities, near a coordinate), ordering ('nearest first') and payload ('with arrival times'). It never names the closest-sounding sibling, search_points, so an agent still has to infer the boundary between 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?

The conditional 'Searches every city whose area overlaps the radius unless `city` is given' tells the agent how the call behaves in each case, which is useful pre-call context. It stops short of saying when to pick this over search_points or get_schedule, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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