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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are distance-sorted; it says nothing about authentication, pagination, error behavior, how radius_km defaults, or what happens if radius_km is omitted. The one behavioral fact (sorted by distance) is a marginal contribution against a large undisclosed surface.

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 that are front-loaded with the core scope. However, the second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's own type notes, so it does not fully earn its place. Efficient in length but low in information density.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is very thin. It leaves search_query, max_results, selected_genres, selected_price_tiers, and selected_subcategories completely unaddressed, and gives no sense of what the tool returns. An agent has insufficient context to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter claim, that user_lat/user_lng/radius_km are numbers, merely repeats what the schema already states ('Send a number, not a string'), adding no meaning beyond structured data.

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 conveys the resource (places) and scope (inside a radius, sorted by distance), which goes beyond a bare name. However, there is no explicit verb, and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_places, get_local_gems, or get_neighborhoods. An agent cannot tell from the text alone when this radius-based tool beats those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many place-related siblings (get_places, get_local_gems, get_marketing_places, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, required inputs, or exclusions; usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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