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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results come from a curated 'verified' catalog and warns against fabricating coordinates, which is useful behavioral context. It says nothing about auth requirements, result ordering, pagination, or what happens when query and lat/lng are both supplied or neither is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the safety constraint, then the invocation rule. Nothing wasted and nothing buried mid-paragraph.

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 5-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the definition covers purpose, a safety rule, and invocation modes. It leaves out `limit` behavior, expected return shape, and any auth or prerequisite context, which an agent would need to call this confidently in edge cases.

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. It does add real semantics by pairing lat+lng and presenting query/city as an alternative mode, but it never mentions the `limit` parameter and gives no format hints beyond the obvious. That is partial compensation, not full.

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+resource with a named data source: 'Search verified places in the Lahze catalog.' An agent immediately knows this is a place lookup against the catalog rather than a mutation or memory tool. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but none of the listed siblings compete for this job.

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?

'Pass query/city, or user coordinates as lat+lng' gives an explicit two-mode invocation rule, which is real guidance rather than description of behavior. 'Never invent coordinates' adds a firm prohibition. Missing is any statement of when to prefer one mode over the other or any prerequisite (e.g., auth, catalog availability).

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