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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that each result carries a coordinate and a charging-site count, which is useful context. It does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs prefix vs fuzzy) or result-set size, so it clears the annotation-lowered bar without going far beyond it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the match criteria first, then the payload. No filler, though it is a fragment with no closing context on result limits.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers the essential purpose and return shape. Only the sibling routing and matching semantics are missing, which are minor for a tool this simple.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including the 'at least two characters' constraint), the schema does the documentation work and the description correctly does not repeat it. Baseline 3 applies since the description 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Places matching a name') and the title clarifies the lookup key is a suburb, town or postcode. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_chargers, so an agent gets no explicit help separating the lookup step from the charger-search step.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but 'each with a coordinate to search around' implies this is the geocoding prerequisite step before a charger search. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no alternative sibling is named.

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