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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral detail: return fields (names in English and Amharic, building/unit, phone only for claimed listings, coordinates usable with quote_ride, bina.et page), flagging of hotels/hospitals, and the distinct map_place result shape for food queries with no listed shop, including the absence of phone, hours, prices, and menu. No annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is dense with actionable routing and return information, but it is a single long paragraph with several clauses that could be structured more readably. Each sentence still earns its place by conveying useful distinctions about results or alternatives, so it avoids pure padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so completely for both result types: listed shops (names, unit, phone conditional on claim status, coordinates, page link) and map_place fallback results (name, area, distance, coords, ride link, and explicit lack of phone/hours/prices/menu). It also routes the agent to sibling tools for details, leaving no obvious gap for correct invocation.

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 parameter definitions already document query (name or part of name, English or Amharic), limit (max per kind, default 8), and category (filter list). The description mentions categories in prose but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('buildings, hotels, hospitals and shops in Addis Ababa listed on BinaSmart'), enumerates concrete categories, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_hotel_rooms, get_hospital_departments, and search_health. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without consulting the schema.

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?

It says when to use it (looking up listed shops and food places on BinaSmart) and when to use alternatives: 'For hospitals, clinics, dentists, labs and doctors anywhere in Addis Ababa, use search_health' and 'Hotels and hospitals are flagged — use get_hotel_rooms / get_hospital_departments for details.' It also explains the fallback behavior for food queries with no listed shop, covering both listed and unlisted cases.

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