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

Despite readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: exact return fields, English + Amharic names, phone only for shops, coordinates 'when known', and flagging of hotels/hospitals. Since there is no output schema, this output-shape disclosure is especially valuable.

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 three sentences with no filler: scope is front-loaded, return fields are enumerated compactly, and sibling routing is given last. Every clause contributes useful 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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, return values, caveats like 'when known', and routing to specialized sibling tools. The input parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description fills the output-side gap completely.

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, limit, and category semantics, including category enum values and limit bounds/default. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and names the exact resource: buildings, hotels, hospitals and shops in Addis Ababa listed on BinaSmart. It also lists concrete example place types and return fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like get_hotel_rooms and get_hospital_departments.

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 description explicitly says that hotels and hospitals are flagged and that get_hotel_rooms / get_hospital_departments should be used for their details. It also explains that coordinates are usable as pickup/dropoff for quote_ride, giving the agent clear routing to sibling tools.

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