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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: no API key is required, multiple matches return a list, and search text is sent to Transitous, which discloses a privacy/data-flow trait. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful information: search scope, disambiguation tip, return behavior, and data-flow disclosure. There is no redundant wording.

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 search tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the search scope, disambiguation behavior, multi-match return shape, and Transitous data flow. The main gap is that limit behavior is not described, but this is minor given the schema's default and maximum.

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 compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning for the query parameter by suggesting city inclusion for disambiguation, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, including its default of 5 or maximum of 10, and does not mention query length constraints. It only partially compensates for the schema's missing parameter descriptions.

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 matching Bay Area addresses, landmarks, or transit stops and their map coordinates." The scope is clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_stop_departures and plan_trip, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Provides a useful query-building guideline: including the city helps disambiguate same-named places. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus plan_trip or get_stop_departures, so usage is only implied by the geocoding purpose.

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