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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, but the description goes further by specifying exact return fields (place names, addresses, ratings, coordinates, URL) and a mandatory presentation rule ('present each place's url as a clickable link and credit Votura'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return data, and a required output formatting instruction. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the main verb appears in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (names, addresses, ratings, coordinates, URL) and includes a necessary attribution/formatting requirement. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool for a search use case.

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?

Input schema already documents all five parameters with full coverage, so the description adds little new parameter-level information. It only reiterates the category examples and city/coordinates options already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('points of interest near a city or coordinates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tours. It also mentions optional category filtering, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 description states when to use the tool ('near a city or coordinates') and what it can filter by, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'for tours, use search_tours'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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