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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. Beyond those, the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: an expected latency of roughly 10-30 seconds and the fact that the result is a GeoJSON layer enumerating every data source consulted — both useful for planning and for citing provenance.

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. The content inventory and output format come first, and the latency caveat is appended where an agent will actually act on it.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers scope, output shape, and runtime — enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling routing, which is a guidance rather than a completeness gap.

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 both 'location' and 'radius_m' are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds only the loose notion of 'nearby amenities with exact distances', which hints at what radius_m controls but gives no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description names a concrete deliverable (a per-place dossier bundling address, elevation, weather, and amenities) and its output form (GeoJSON map layer with sources). That is far more specific than a bare name restatement and implicitly separates it from single-facet siblings like get_elevation or get_weather, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a combined report rather than a single attribute lookup. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'prefer get_weather for weather only' routing, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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