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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral details such as auto-geocoding for place names, accepting plain-English terms or exact OSM tags, and returning names, tags, and coordinates. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the safety hints.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. It includes examples and parameter clarifications without extraneous words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), strong annotations, and a detailed description covering input modes, category handling, sample queries, and return values, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, the description enriches the semantics by explaining the 'place' parameter's auto-geocoding behavior and the 'tag' parameter's flexibility (plain term vs. exact OSM tag). This adds value beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: finding OpenStreetMap points of interest near a location, and lists example categories (shops, amenities, businesses). It also specifies how to specify location and category, and even includes sample queries that demonstrate its exact purpose, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'places_in_bbox' by focusing on 'near a location' rather than bounding boxes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Answers "find bike rental shops in <city>"') and how to provide inputs (location via lat/lon or place name). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context and examples make the intended usage clear and practical.

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