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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are distance-ordered, each item exposes power, plugs, price, network and its page number. It does not mention result caps or rate limits, but for a read-only ranked search this is solid.

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 ordering guarantee ('nearest first') plus result shape come before the optional-filter guidance. 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?

With a full schema, annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to frame purpose and filtering, which it does. It omits any note about the proximity requirement (lat/lng) being mandatory or the radius default, but the schema already states both.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the intent of min_kw, plugs and network with use-case language, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 (find charging sites) with scope ('nearest a point, nearest first') and enumerates what each result carries. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_charger (the singular, presumably by-id lookup), so an agent must infer the split.

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 filter sentence tells the agent what each optional parameter is useful for ('min_kw for fast charging, plugs for what the car takes, network for one operator'), and it routes to list_networks for slugs. However, it never states when to use this tool versus get_charger, so the routing against the closest sibling is left implied.

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