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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond them: result shape (world coords [x,y,z] with z null for 2D sources), town/district/state tagging, link semantics (interior → members, shop/door → site), the door-visibility rule ('Doors only appear for type=door or door/gate/cell words'), and search fallback behavior when a town filter is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage before diving into modes and results; every sentence carries information. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is no filler.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully documents the return format (coords, town/district/state, relation links) and query modes. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description meaningfully compensates by explaining how parameters interact: 'search' filters to a named town with nearest-match fallback, 'near'/nearPlace drive proximity queries, 'radius' defaults to 250m, and nearPlace is resolved like search. Only limit/offset go unexplained, but those are standard pagination.

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 places on the RedM/RDR3 map and how they relate) and goes further by enumerating covered entity types (states, districts, towns, shops, interiors, landmarks, graves, doors). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'Models/props use asset_lookup; IMAP chunks discovery_lookup.'

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('where is X', 'coordinates of …', 'what is near …'), names the alternative tools for adjacent domains, and documents each mode (search, name, type, near, nearPlace) with the condition that selects it. Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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