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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matches come back with coordinates, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ranking, match count, or ambiguity handling.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage note second. Every clause carries information.

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 a simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies whether multiple matches are returned or how near_lat/near_lng affect ordering, which matters for an ambiguous-name lookup.

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 query, near_lat and near_lng. The description's 'by name or address' merely restates the query parameter and never explains how the proximity coordinates bias results, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 a place by name or address') and what comes back ('matching places with their coordinates'). The closing clause ties it to the routing workflow, which implicitly separates it from the sibling generate_routes.

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?

'Use it to confirm an ambiguous start before generating routes' gives a concrete triggering condition and names the downstream tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when a place is already unambiguous or when routing is not needed).

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