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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: district queries return parking only without distances, and district-only place names behave the same. It still omits return shape, radius behavior, and limit effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and constraints following. The sentence 'District-only place names do the same' is somewhat redundant with the preceding district rule, but overall there is little waste.

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?

Given six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description provides only partial coverage. It handles the trickiest mode-selection constraints but leaves important call-shaping details like radius_m default behavior, limit semantics, and returned content unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains district/place/coordinates exclusivity and the Acıbadem disambiguation rule, but says nothing about lat, lon, limit, or radius_m, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource: summarize mobility near a static place reference or coordinates. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as istanbul_nearby or istanbul_city_services_nearby, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives useful input-mode guidance: district is exclusive with place/coordinates, district-only queries return parking only, and the tool is not address geocoding. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over nearby siblings, so alternatives remain ambiguous.

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