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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance (OpenStreetMap via TTC) and confirms coordinates are returned, but says nothing about matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact), result ordering, or coverage limits beyond Tbilisi.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, with the data source and downstream consumers appended compactly. No wasted wording.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, geographic scope and data source. Only matching semantics and empty-result behavior are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple search tool.

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 query, limit and language are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond restating that the query is text-based, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (finds) and resource (places in Tbilisi: addresses, streets, buildings) plus the search mode (by text) and return content (coordinates). This clearly separates it from transit_search_stops, which handles stops rather than places.

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 names downstream consumers (transit_plan_trip, transit_list_nearby_stops), which implies usage context, but it never states when to prefer this over transit_search_stops or what happens when a query matches nothing. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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