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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the data source (Overture Maps places), the hard geographic scope (United States and United Kingdom only), the returned field set, and the ordering rule ('nearest or best match first'). It omits rate limits and empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core verb and coverage, followed by return shape, then motivating examples. Dense but every clause carries information; the long list of returned fields is the only mildly padded section.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating return fields and the sort order, and by flagging the US/UK coverage boundary that the schema does not express. Missing pieces are pagination/limit behavior in prose and guidance versus sibling area-search tools.

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%, so every one of the 11 parameters is already documented, including ranges, defaults, and the country/city pairing. The description only restates the name/category/near/bbox/city combinations at a high level and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find businesses and points of interest') and enumerates the four search modes (name/category, near point, bbox, city), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic search tools. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling places_in_area, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Three quoted example queries ('nearest Starbucks', 'dentists in Austin TX', 'Pret A Manger in London') implicitly show when to reach for this tool, which is helpful. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like places_in_area, places_by_domain, or search_within, leaving the agent to guess between near-duplicate siblings.

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