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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety behavior is disclosed. The description still adds valuable context: the data source (Overture Maps places), the geographic scope (US and UK only), and that subdomains/paths fold to the registrable domain — behavior not visible in the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and who it's for, then inputs, then outputs, then the example question. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the return-value sentence is slightly list-heavy but justified since there is no output schema.

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 appropriately states what comes back (total count, counts by country/state, locations with addresses, phones, confidence) and notes the geographic restriction and domain normalization. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination/results cap behavior beyond what the limit parameter already documents.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining domain normalization (subdomains and full URLs fold to the registrable domain) and by stating the country scope as US/GB, which clarifies the otherwise free-text country parameter.

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 ('List every physical location whose website is on a company domain') and names the concept explicitly as 'the store / office / branch footprint of a business'. This clearly separates it from sibling geospatial tools like places_in_area and places_search, which are not domain-driven.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('Answers "how many locations does acme.com have and where"') and sample inputs, so the agent knows the intended scenario. It does not explicitly contrast with places_search/places_in_area or state exclusions, so a small gap remains.

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