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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are sorted by distance, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or coverage of the API key requirement beyond what the schema states.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action and return value; the example is compact and reinforces the signature. No filler, though the example sentence duplicates the schema's examples rather than adding information.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to name the resource and hint at behavior, which it does. The one real gap is sibling disambiguation against search_within/search_geonames, but that is a minor omission for a simple geo lookup.

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%, and the schema itself carries examples plus the radius default (10) and max (300). The description's example simply restates coordinates already present in the schema examples, adding no new semantics.

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 ('Find places near'), resource (a lat/lng coordinate), and even the return shape (cities, landmarks, features sorted by distance). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like search_within or search_geonames, which an agent must disambiguate.

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 example (get_nearby(48.8566, 2.3522)) demonstrates invocation syntax, not selection criteria. There is no statement of when to use this over search_within (radius-based search) or search_geonames, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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