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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the return shape (lat/lon pairs) and that lookup is by name. It omits matching semantics (exact vs. substring), not-found behavior, and result ordering, and the output schema is left to explain result structure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the downstream-usage hint; nothing is wasted. The inline Polish translation adds length but serves the tool's bilingual naming convention.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input basis, and downstream usage adequately. Only the 'limit' parameter and no-match behavior remain unexplained, which are minor gaps at this complexity.

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 only 50%: the 'query' fragment semantics live in the schema, while 'limit' (default 10, max 25) is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds only 'by name' on top of what the schema already says, so it neither compensates for the gap nor earns more than the baseline.

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 and resource ('find transit stop groups and neighborhoods by name') plus the return value ('lat/lon'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that consume coordinates. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 second sentence gives real routing guidance: use the resulting coordinates as input for the other tools, which positions find_place as the upstream geocoding step relative to commute_time, rank_neighborhoods, and rent_stats. It does not state any when-not conditions or failure behavior, but the context is unambiguous.

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